North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: if the owner of MAE-EAST can drop me a note....
> MFS Datanet provides the service known as MAE-East to a group of > customers who created and define it by what they are willing > to pay for. There is no single entity which "owns" it in any real sense. > MFS owns the facilities which provide the service, but MAE-East as a concept > is really more of a cooperative and there isn't any obvious "owner". OK. Customers, no owner. Same arrangement MFS has with NAP-attachers. > This is precisely why MFS got in seriously hot water with the MAE-East > customers when they wanted to rename MAE-East the DC NAP - MAE-East ain't > truly theirs to rename in a very real sense. Rightly so. How do you feel about language such as "MAE-East, a.k.a. DC NAP"? Or maybe just not worry about names? > That's what make responding to your otherwise quite reasonable request > rather tricky, short of convening a MAE-East customer plenary, which MFS > *has* undertaken once before (when the group was rather smaller). Are the MAE-East participants required to subscribe to CIX-like "must carry" and "no settlements" agreements? Or - more to the point - have they agreed not to enter into bi- or multi-lateral agreements with other IP carriers they may stumble across on the MFS DC infrastructure. I.e., is it permissible for some or all of the MAE-East participant/customers to make "arrangements" with some or all of the DC NAP customers? If so, that's the desired (by NSF) result; I'll shut up and stay out of the way, and let the historians worry about what was named what. If not, perhaps we can find a way to negotiate in absurdity avoidance mode. -s - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -