[2394] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: the Internet Backbone
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jim Browning)
Fri Apr 5 12:38:34 1996
From: Jim Browning <jfbb@atmnet.net>
To: "nanog@merit.edu" <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 09:35:12 -0800
>From: John Curran[SMTP:jcurran@bbnplanet.com]
>
>At 10:32 AM 4/5/96, William Allen Simpson wrote:
>>> From: Avi Freedman <freedman@netaxs.com>
>>>...
>>> Everyone (of importance) agrees that in order to claim you're a
backbone
>>> you have to (now, not a year ago) be connected to at least 2 public
NAPs/MAEs
>>> and have at least one circuit that runs at DS3 or higher speed.
>>>
>>No, that is not correct.
>>
>>A US Internet "backbone" is one which connects to ALL the NAP/MAEs in
>>the US. Not just two. All of them.
>
>Bill,
>
> I'm not sure that's a viable definition. First, the number of MAE's
> seems to be increasing withou bound, and secondly, there are points
> that you don't want to connect due to their performance. Finally, is
> "connecting" considered the same as "peering"?
>
>/John
There is no clear consensus concerning which of the facilities are "NAPs",
let alone which ones an ISP should participate in to be considered a
credible National/Backbone provider. For instance, while MAE-West was not
one of the original NAPs established by NSF, it clearly qualifies in all
other respects. On the other hand, I don't think it would be considered
necessary to be at LA, Phoenix, Tucson, Dallas, etc right now to be
considered a National/Backbone provider. The criteria I've heard most
frequently is "connected to three of the NAPs, peering with at least 2
national providers at each of those NAPs". I believe this is what MCI
requires in order to establish peering with a new entity...
--
Jim Browning
