North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: NAP History (was RE: The large ISPs and Peering)
On Thu, 26 July 2001, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: > At the time, the "center of the universe" was AS690, which was paid > for by US taxpayer money and consequently had an AUP. The NAPs were > envisioned as a transitional mechanism away from that arrangement. A > lot of us at the time wondered aloud why NSF needed to provide a stamp > of approval on US-based exchange points, as the FIXes, MAE East, and > Milo's setup at NASA-Ames were already going concerns without any kind > of endorsement from the NSF. Some companies (notably UUnet) thought > this was gratuitous enough that they never showed up at any NAPs. If I recall, the objection was to using ATM for a exchange fabric, because several people thought it was less reliable at the time. I thought UUNET was at the New York NAP (SPRINT Pennsauken, NJ) as well as the MAE-East alternate NAP, which used FDDI. There were several ISPs at that time which only connected to FDDI/Gigaswitch based exchange points, and shunned the ATM exchange points.
|