[39929] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NAP History (was RE: The large ISPs and Peering)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sean Donelan)
Thu Jul 26 16:11:41 2001
Date: 26 Jul 2001 13:11:08 -0700
Message-ID: <20010726201108.11488.cpmta@c004.sfo.cp.net>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: arnold@nipper.de
From: Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
X-Sent-From: sean@donelan.com
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Thu, 26 July 2001, "Nipper, Arnold" wrote:
> 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"?
I don't think european, japanese, or even other US IXP's require NSF's
"stamp of approval." I was pointing out there are a number of IXP which
were not created by NSF's process. But some folks think "NAP" refers
only to the NSF identified exchange points, and unless the government
approves your NAP, there is some type of anti-trust issue with ISPs
deciding to exchange traffic at a non-NSF NAP. I don't think that is
true.
The NSF stopped funding all the NAPs several years ago. Other than a
historical oddity, there is nothing different about the NSF NAP and
non-NSF exchange points.
