[10667] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: clarifying earlier NAP discussion with Marvin
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Manning)
Fri Mar 4 21:34:12 1994
From: bmanning@is.rice.edu (William Manning)
To: cook@path.net (Gordon Cook)
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 1994 21:25:06 -0600 (CST)
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: <9403021430.aa10262@pandora.sf.ca.us> from "Gordon Cook" at Mar 2, 94 02:30:04 pm
Gordon Cook sez: (in some time warp)
> UUNET & PSI....
> 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.
Well, the do connect there and if I read Steves note & the solicitation,
the WDC nap is mandatory. The sol. says there can be more @ NSF's choice.
Policy should be the same.
> Here's a new question:
> SPRINT & IRC $$....
> If they are not, is there any overwhelming reason why they should
> interconnect at any NAP other than the NYC one that they are running?
>
> What if Steve Wolff gave us NAPs and no one came?
>
Buzzt. Thats two.
First question. No.... unless there were business reasons.
Second question. This would mean that the CIX is the right model -OR-
that commercial services were actually able to a) get it right, (some
have a very good clue and some are clueless) and b) agree to peer w/
each other at a mutual exchange point. (something they are not quite
as good at yet) The NAP concept would exist, but there would be a lot
more of them with many fewer connects. Steve has lent NSF weight to
a small number with lots of connects, which is actually the better
approch.
NAPs are a good thing. It is the level playing field... as long as there
is still a neutral Routing entity that does not play in the transit game.
Now one for you.
Which is the better deal, a CIX connection or a PAC-NAP connection and why?
--
Regards,
Bill Manning
