North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Comments
> 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. But it really is differnt than a NAP. There is policy stuff stuck to a "NAP". MAE-East has no requirement for traffic statistics reporting to the NSF on a periodic basis. Do we want them to? I don't know; personally, I don't think its their business. I don't want to have MFS have to do this sort of stuff. > 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. Sorry, I still don't get it. How is this simpler for *me*. I don't have a compelling need to "check-off" anything. I don't see how this simpler for any of the existing MAE-East participants, either. > 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? Shall we just get down to it: it's as much an emotinal issue as anything. MAE-East was built almost in spite of the the existing ANS/NSFNET NSF-sponsored network. Any now they want to come along to a facility which "we" built already, which has been a popular success and model of inter-ISP cooperation and burden it with this government label which none of us seeks. And then hold it up as a successful implementation of the network architecture proposed by the NSF; it would be a farce. NSF threw a party in Washington DC called the NAP, and nobody came. Please let us be. The reason not label it a NAP is because some of us just don't WANT you to. It's our party. If other MAE-East party-goers, er, particpants have a different opinion, I'd be happy to hear it. Peter, at this point you probably should post a polite note to the mae-east mailing list to see what other think about this harmless idea of yours; I don't know how many of them are on this list. Louis A. Mamakos [email protected] Backbone Architecture & Engineering Guy uunet!louie AlterNet / UUNET Technologies, Inc. 3110 Fairview Park Drive., Suite 570 Voice: +1 703 204 8023 Falls Church, Va 22042 Fax: +1 703 204 8001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|