[39927] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NAP History (was RE: The large ISPs and Peering)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (steve wolff)
Thu Jul 26 13:50:43 2001
From: steve wolff <swolff@merit.edu>
Reply-To: swolff@cisco.com
To: rs@seastrom.com (Robert E. Seastrom),
"Nipper, Arnold" <arnold@nipper.de>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 13:49:32 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>, "Sean Donelan" <sean@donelan.com>
In-Reply-To: <87elr3y5yl.fsf@valhalla.seastrom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <0107261349321I.01076@ockeghem>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
With the impending closure of the NSFNET Backbone, and the distfribution =
of=20
those funds to (academic) regional networks for the purpose of buying=20
backbone service from ISPs on the open market, NSF feared that universal=20
connectivity within the US higher education community might be lost - if =
all=20
ISPs concerned did not peer with one another.
Accordingly, NSF established the NAPs as open exchange points, and the fu=
nds=20
distributed to regional networks to buy backbone service had a string=20
attached: the regionals could only buy from ISPs who agreed to come to o=
ne=20
or more NAPs and exchange higher ed traffic. Thus the universal connecti=
vity=20
of the community NSF was charged to serve was aassured.
NSF never intended the NAPs to be the ONLY peering/exchange points, and n=
ever=20
contemplated a 'stamp of approval' (or disapproval, for that matter) for=20
anybody else's exchange point; the NAPs were inclusive, not exclusive.
-s
On Thursday 26 July 2001 13:07, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
> "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
--=20
Stephen Wolff 202 362 7110 voice
Office of the CTO 202 362 7224 fax
Cisco Systems 202 427 6752 mobile
