[2770] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Sprints definition on NAPs (question)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Enke Chen)
Wed May 1 12:25:10 1996
To: Nathan Stratton <nathan@netrail.net>
cc: Jeremy Porter <jerry@fc.net>, loco@mfst.com, nanog@merit.edu, enke@mci.net
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 01 May 1996 09:14:44 EDT."
<Pine.LNX.3.92.960501091409.1524D-100000@netrail.net>
Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 12:17:59 -0400
From: Enke Chen <enke@mci.net>
IMHO, it is a fair statement that these peers face great uncertainty.
There should not be any loss of connectivity as their transit provider
should take care of business.
-- Enke
> Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 09:14:44 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Nathan Stratton <nathan@netrail.net>
> To: Jeremy Porter <jerry@fc.net>
> CC: loco@MFST.COM, nanog@merit.edu
> On Wed, 1 May 1996, Jeremy Porter wrote:
>
> > >|} > the Sherman Act (if memory serves). These types of problems can be q
uite
> > >|} > nasty, involving treble punitive damages.
> >
> > Unfortunately for Nathan, this above is wrong.
> >
> > There are very real engineering reasons for not peering
> > if someone is at one NAP/MAE. Also since Sprint and MCI
> > do have published policies, if they made exceptions to them
> > they could get sued for discriminating against some competators
> > (not all, makes a big legal difference).
>
> Ok, so what about Interpath, CAIS, and a bunch more that are peering with
> MCI and are at only 1 NAP?
>
