|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Comments
> Sorry, I can't let you get away with that statement! You can shape > peering policy WITHOUT specifying the location of the interconnect. No apology needed :-) > The customer wants connectivity, not NAPs! Why doesn't NSF specify > connectivity rather than means? Does NFS want to ensure IT controls > the Internet by controling some of the major interconnect? We did a lot of community consulting before settling on the current architecture. It was clear the FTS2000-like solution of another NSFNET Backbone with two or more suppliers was felt to be *too* structured, and the solution of "give the money to the end-user and get out of the way" was too loose for comfort. The NAP/RA/RNP solution had FIX/CIX/MAE-East precedent and, it seemed, just enough structure. NSF hasn't the slightest desire to "control the Internet." If the NAPs aren't useful they won't be used. I should be delighted were the technical community to arrive at a demonstrably better architecture that would be affordable by, and adequately serve, the NSF community. -s - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|