[2771] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Sprints definition on NAPs (question)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Justin W. Newton)
Wed May 1 15:50:50 1996
Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 15:48:41 -0400
To: Nathan Stratton <nathan@netrail.net>
From: "Justin W. Newton" <justin@erols.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
At 09:14 AM 5/1/96 -0400, you wrote:
>On Wed, 1 May 1996, Jeremy Porter wrote:
>
>> >|} > the Sherman Act (if memory serves). These types of problems can be
quite
>> >|} > 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?
Probably because they were peering with MCI before the policy, but thats
just a guess.
Justin Newton * You have to change just to stay
Internet Architect * caught up.
Erol's Internet Services *
