[10890] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Why a NAP? [was Re: "Fed **deal** may speed]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kent W. England)
Sun Mar 13 22:13:22 1994
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 1994 18:59:40 -0800
To: Bob Collet <rcollet@sprintlink.net>
From: kwe@cerf.net (Kent W. England)
Cc: "com-priv" <com-priv@psi.com>
At 7:15 AM 3/13/94 -0500, Bob Collet wrote:
>I think what the NSF is trying to do is
>prevent fragmentation of the Internet by facilitating and easy-to-get-to and
>easy-to-use (Routing Arbiter) interconnection point. Hopefully, this makes
>for a stronger and more robust Internet market for the service providers and
>enhanced utility for customers through shorter paths and full connectivity.
>Even if for some reason they are suboptimal but still a net gain, what's the
>big deal in making 3 NAP connections? Cost will be next to nothing.
Right on target, Bob. What some seem to be forgetting is that NSF
needs to connect the vBNS to the rest of the Internet for its own purposes
and not necessarily to once again serve as the interconnect-of-last-resort
for everyone (let CIX or other do that). NAPs are an improvement over the
FIXes (should be fewer political problems and less bureaucracy).
NSF needs three NAPs (min) to avoid the one-CIX syndrome with its attendant
economic disadvantage to some CIX members.
Connect or not as you choose, NSF still needs the NAPs for those who
connect. And if it turns out to be not worth the effort, then the NSF will
be out all those big NAP funding dollars, right, Bob? :-)
--Kent
