[39921] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NAP History (was RE: The large ISPs and Peering)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robert E. Seastrom)
Thu Jul 26 13:08:32 2001
To: "Nipper, Arnold" <arnold@nipper.de>
Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>, "Sean Donelan" <sean@donelan.com>
From: rs@seastrom.com (Robert E. Seastrom)
Date: 26 Jul 2001 13:07:30 -0400
In-Reply-To: "Nipper, Arnold"'s message of "Thu, 26 Jul 2001 18:38:55 +0200"
Message-ID: <87elr3y5yl.fsf@valhalla.seastrom.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
"Nipper, Arnold" <arnold@nipper.de> writes:
> Sean Donelan schrieb:
>
> > exchange points. Some of the additional exchange points have grown very
> > large, such as CIX, MAE-West, LINX, AMS-IX, even though they didn't have
> > NSF's "stamp of approval."
> >
>
> Why should LINX, AMS-IX, DE-CIX or any other European IXP need NSF's "stamp
> of approval"?
At the time, the "center of the universe" was AS690, which was paid
for by US taxpayer money and consequently had an AUP. The NAPs were
envisioned as a transitional mechanism away from that arrangement. A
lot of us at the time wondered aloud why NSF needed to provide a stamp
of approval on US-based exchange points, as the FIXes, MAE East, and
Milo's setup at NASA-Ames were already going concerns without any kind
of endorsement from the NSF. Some companies (notably UUnet) thought
this was gratuitous enough that they never showed up at any NAPs.
---Rob
