[45288] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NANOG 24: NAP BoF
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Randy Bush)
Tue Jan 29 11:47:30 2002
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: nanog@merit.edu
Message-Id: <E16VbPP-0005l6-00@rip.psg.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 08:46:59 -0800
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> i believe there are/were only four NAPs, so scheduling should not be a
> problem.
it seems that many folk do not know that NSF let contracts involving four
NAPs, Pennsauken, AADS, PacBell, and MAE-East (i hope bit-rot has not set in
so badly i blew that list). those are/were the only NAPs. there are many
more excnagne points.
the essence of what NSF said was that, to get a transition contract, a
provider had to be at the NAPs so others would know where/how to reach
them. what they did not say was that the providers had to peer openly
and provision sufficient bandwidth; but that's another story.
i am sure this is all written down somewhere, which is good as i suffer
from increasing bit-rot.
i think george santayana had something to say about all this.
randy
