North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Comments

  • From: Peter S. Ford
  • Date: Sun Sep 11 15:30:48 1994


As stated in my earlier note, NSF's goal is to obtain NAP
functionality.  This functionality is technology independent.  The
whole purpose of the note was to point out that the desired
functionality can be met by taking advantage of an existing facility.
Thus, an ISP who wanted to check off that they were meeting the NAP
functionality that NSF was requesting could do so by saying they were
doing so in part by being connected to MAE-east.  This is the clear
gain that you were asking for: simplification for some of the ISPs.

Simply using existing existing interconnection facilities rather than
"building" is advantageous to NSF.  This seems to be consistent with
what you are saying.  Steve Wolff has said that the NSF should be using
existing industry built facilities instead of growing them in
numerous forums.

I (speaking for myself) agree with you that there is no reason to build
something if another facility meets the requirements.  However, at the
time the NSF solicitation was run there was not a facility for
interconnecting ISPs at the data rates needed.  And there was a lot of
rhetoric that DS-3 rates and above did not make sense.  With time 
circumstances should, and do, change.

Now that there is a facility for ISP interconnection at DS-3 rates, it
seems prudent for NSF to consider MAE-east inter-connectivity as 
meeting NAP requirements.

Since it appears the act of putting a NAP label on MAE-east does not
seem to have an impact on the functioning of MAE-east, is there any
reason not to do so?

thanks for your note,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -