|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Comments
Louie, 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, peter - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|