[45299] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NANOG 24: NAP BoF
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alan Hannan)
Wed Jan 30 01:35:39 2002
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 22:35:04 -0800
From: Alan Hannan <alan@routingloop.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20020129223503.A18957@routingloop.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.4.33.0201290854540.27413-100000@woody.zocalo.net>; from woody@zocalo.net on Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 09:00:21AM -0800
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Something bothers me about this thread, and I think it is the
assertion that there is a proper definition for 'NAP' as
differentiated from 'IXP' or what not.
It seems as silly as trying to define Tier 1 v. Tier 2.
The NSF's documents do not define terminology or protocols in a
manner like the IETF for the operation of the greater Internet.
I believe the referenced documents discuss requirements for the
transition of the backbone over time, but i don't have them in
front of me, nor am I eidetic like some folks seem.
People should be free to define these terms as they see fit,
with no central authority defining what is what (and I don't
think there should be).
A scientific community will communicate (only|best) through a
common vernacular, but to disallow ambiguity in certain terms is
to require unanimity, which will not occur. Given that the
Internet is more of a business community than a scientific
community, appropriate ambiguity should be openly accepted.
The original 4 NSF sanctioned NAPs should retain a historical
differentiation from all others due to their significance in
transitioning the original NSFNet Internet to privately funded
backbones.
To assert a 'proper use' of the term "NAP" oversteps logic
and implies an arrogantly fascist assertion of perspective.
So I think.
-alan
ps. in a few gogle searches for the paper, I did find a
reminiscent article on the assumptions and arguments back in
1994 circa NSFNet cessation of Internet Backbone funding at:
http://www.cookreport.com/03.07.shtml
