[39931] 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 16:34:00 2001
Date: 26 Jul 2001 13:33:25 -0700
Message-ID: <20010726203325.12238.cpmta@c004.sfo.cp.net>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: rs@seastrom.com
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, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
> 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.
If I recall, the objection was to using ATM for a exchange fabric, because
several people thought it was less reliable at the time. I thought UUNET
was at the New York NAP (SPRINT Pennsauken, NJ) as well as the MAE-East
alternate NAP, which used FDDI.
There were several ISPs at that time which only connected to FDDI/Gigaswitch
based exchange points, and shunned the ATM exchange points.
