[10978] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: California NAP Designed as a CIX Killer??
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bob Collet, Sprint)
Thu Mar 17 08:00:52 1994
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 1994 08:31:06 -0500
From: "Bob Collet, Sprint" <rcollet@sprintlink.net>
To: farooq@sprintlink.net (Farooq Hussain), cook@path.net (Gordon Cook)
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
If Farooq's assertion were to be substantially realized I wonder what that
does to the RA.
Bob Collet
> Return-Path: <farooq@sprintlink.net>
> Message-Id: <9403170304.AA21776@sprintlink.net>
> X-Sender: farooq@tiny.sprintlink.net
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> Date: Wed, 16 Mar 1994 22:06:11 -0500
> To: cook@path.net (Gordon Cook)
> From: farooq@sprintlink.net (Farooq Hussain)
> Subject: Re: California NAP Designed as a CIX Killer??
> Cc: com-priv@psi.com
>
> Gordon
> >Peter - are you saying that those who connect to a NAP may choose to
> >peer (do I use the right term?) only with whatever subset of NAP
> >connectees they choose?
> >
> >Take the California NAP as an example. Say it has 30 networks
> >connected. To paick an aribtary number are you saying that five of
> >those 30 are perfectly free to peer with each other and NEED NOT PEER
> >with anyone else??
>
> This is not as incredulous as you make it sound. Just suppose that a
> NAP attached network at one NAP has its transit managed by an NSP that
> attaches to all NAPS. If this were the case it would have a number of
> perfectly legitimate technical and financial reasons to peer only with
> specified networds at the point of its own NAP attachement (assuming it'
> s only attached to one NAP).
>
> Farooq Hussain
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
