[2742] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Peering Policies and Route Servers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bmanning@isi.edu)
Tue Apr 30 15:14:12 1996
From: bmanning@isi.edu
To: roll@stupi.se (Peter Lothberg)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 11:59:38 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: bmanning@isi.edu, amarashi@interglobe.com, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <CMM.0.90.0.830878864.roll@Junk.Stupi.SE> from "Peter Lothberg" at Apr 30, 96 05:40:47 pm
> > > (2) Could anyone share opinions/facts regarding why organizations may or
> > > may not exchange routes via the Route Servers rather than direct peering
> > > relationships at the NAPs?
> >
> > I know of no case where an organization "may not" exchange routes
> > with the Route Servers.
>
> I do, AS1800..
>
> --Peter
Hum... Lets looks at this for a bit.
27% whois 1800
SPRINT (ASN-ICMNET-2)
Autonomous System Name: ICM-Atlantic
Autonomous System Number: 1800
ICM is the NSF project for International Connection Mangment yes?
Are you intimating that the NSF ICM contract prohibits it from
working with the NSF RA project?
Perhaps someone from the NSF would be willing to give us a reading
here. I had thought that these two NSF projects were to work together
to improve the stability of the global Internet routing system.
I'd would appreciate some clarification here.
--
--bill
