[10650] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
clarifying earlier NAP discussion with Marvin
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Gordon Cook)
Thu Mar 3 21:25:24 1994
From: cook@path.net (Gordon Cook)
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 1994 14:30:04 PST
To: com-priv@psi.com
Marvin Sirbu pointed out privately to me what some might see as a contradiction
in my saying that PSI and UUNET might choose to connect at the NAPS and then
saying later that they might connect at the Washington DC NAP.
Sorry that I was not sufficiently clear. What I wanted to get accross was that
PSI and UUNET may not connect at *ALL* the NSF sponsored NAPS. To be eligble
for NSF handouts they would have to connect at NYC, Chicago and California as
well. There is no overwhelming reason for them to do this.
The Washington NAP, where if they did connect, they'd be most likely to, was not
on the list of mandatory NAPs. I am not sure whether there will be policy
differences in how Washington NAP is handled because it is not one of the three
NAPs required by the solicitation.
--------
Here's a new question:
I have no knowledge of whether Sprint is in line for inter regional money from
NSF or not. If they are not, is there any overwhelming reason why they should
interconnect at any NAP other than the New York City one that they are running?
What if Steve Wolff gave us NAPs and no one came?
