[39932] 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 16:51:05 2001
From: steve wolff <swolff@merit.edu>
Reply-To: swolff@cisco.com
To: Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>, swolff@cisco.com
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 16:50:11 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <20010726202406.7312.cpmta@c004.sfo.cp.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <0107261650111Q.01076@ockeghem>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Comments inline... -s
On Thursday 26 July 2001 16:24, Sean Donelan wrote:
> On Thu, 26 July 2001, steve wolff wrote:
> > With the impending closure of the NSFNET Backbone, and the distfribut=
ion
> > of those funds to (academic) regional networks for the purpose of buy=
ing
> > backbone service from ISPs on the open market, NSF feared that univer=
sal
> > connectivity within the US higher education community might be lost -=
if
> > all ISPs concerned did not peer with one another.
>
> The NSF never required ISPs peer with one another. The requirement
> was to "connect" to the three primary NAPs, not exchange traffic. Unive=
rsal
> connectivity was an issue we are still dealing with.
NSF placed the requirement on the regionals - not the NAPs nor the ISPs. =
=20
Universal connectivity WAS maintained - for that community.
> > Accordingly, NSF established the NAPs as open exchange points, and th=
e
> > funds distributed to regional networks to buy backbone service had a
> > string attached: the regionals could only buy from ISPs who agreed t=
o
> > come to one or more NAPs and exchange higher ed traffic. Thus the
> > universal connectivity of the community NSF was charged to serve was
> > aassured.
>
> The CIX router had a mandatory peering policy, assuring universal
> connectivity among its members. For several years, the CIX router
> served as the "router of last resort." But some providers didn't
> like that policy.
And still don't...
> Neither MAE-East, or the NAPs had "AUPs" covering traffic exchange.
Quite right; the NAPs were AUP-free - taking advantage of a special=20
exemption granted by the US Congress the year before.
> > NSF never intended the NAPs to be the ONLY peering/exchange points, a=
nd
> > never contemplated a 'stamp of approval' (or disapproval, for that
> > matter) for anybody else's exchange point; the NAPs were inclusive, n=
ot
> > exclusive.
--=20
Stephen Wolff 202 362 7110 voice
Office of the CTO 202 362 7224 fax
Cisco Systems 202 427 6752 mobile
