[38694] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Why so little traffic from C&W
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sean M. Doran)
Sun Jun 10 22:22:34 2001
To: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com, rachel@telco-bitch.com
Cc: bicknell@ufp.org, nanog@merit.edu
Message-Id: <20010611022202.40F90C7904@cesium.clock.org>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 19:22:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: smd@clock.org (Sean M. Doran)
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Rachel Warren <rachel@telco-bitch.com> quotes Bill Manning and replies:
| > There was never any governmental sanction of the term or
| > concept of tier anything associate with the NSFnet or its
| > transition.
|
| And this is definately a good thing.
It's also not true. NSF 93-52 did indeed specify
precisely what type of backbone the funded regionals could
connect to, and it required those distinguished backbones
to interconnect in specific locations (the "priority" NAPs).
The name "tier" wasn't used wrt eligible and ineligible
backbones, but there was an explicit ranking of preference by the
NSF that was based on specific interconnectivity, and that mapped
very cleanly onto the then tier-1 backbones, with the exception of
UUNET, which didn't play (and MFS's NAP wasn't even a "priority" one).
| I don't think I would want to see my tax money being used by the
| Department of Standards to define "Tier-1".
Been there, done that, got the bruises (thanks pford & priscilla,
I like the "I went to Danvers and all I got was a meeting behind my back"
t-shirt souvenir).
Sean.
