[635] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: MCI and SprintLink are partitioned (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bmanning@ISI.EDU)
Wed Oct 4 12:13:36 1995
From: bmanning@ISI.EDU
To: hwb@upeksa.sdsc.edu (Hans-Werner Braun)
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 09:02:01 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: cook@cookreport.com, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <199510041535.IAA23092@upeksa.sdsc.edu> from "Hans-Werner Braun" at Oct 4, 95 08:35:14 am
> . are all three (four?) NAPs really being used
Yes. for some value of "used".
> . Is there any evidence that the NAPs are really backing each other
> up?
Not sure this is possible. Perhaps the better question is,
are providers using the NAPs to back each other up.
> . do we have some regular examples from *any* site A initiating a
> connection from A to B, A to C, and A to D, where the three are
> verifiably (via traceroute, I guess) would traverse different NAPs
> (and hopefully only one each)?
Yes.
> . Are there routing stability reports accessible online from the RA
> (or whoever else feels responsible for this) that graph fluctuations
> at the NAPs, including correlation among them? What are the quality
> metrics for routing stability?
Being defined.
> . Do all the NAPs provide online statistics?
No.
> . Are the NAP and RA regular reports to NSF publicly (hopefully via
> the Web) available?
http://info.ra.net/papers have the annual report/plan papers
> . Is there any way NANOG can be used to exchange status information
> accessible via the network. Is someone already working on that?
> Would not NANOG be *the* forum to cooperate on that?
Sounds like a really good idea to me.
--bill
