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....
> 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? MAE-East participants are not required to subscribe to "must carry" or "no settlement" agreements. Participants peer with some set of other participants with exclusively bi-lateral agreements. As it turns out, at least in the case of AlterNet, we have *only* "no settlements" type of peering arrangements. I don't know of any "settlements" based agreement over MAE-East, but that's not to say that they don't exist. I'm pretty certain that AlterNet wouldn't enter into such an agreement. I don't know how MAE-East participants/customers would make arrangements with the DC NAP customers, since they're on a seperate, unconnected level-2 infrastructure. > 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. NAP, in my mind, implies a government designated facility of some sort. I personally would like to keep that label off of MAE-East. It might be useful in the future to have this private-sector "showcase" available to help combat stupid legislative attempts. Again, that's my personal opinion, and may not even be shared by others here at UUNET/AlterNet 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 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|