Merit Network
Can't find what you're looking for? Search the Mail Archives.
  About Merit   Services   Network   Resources & Support   Network Research   News   Events   Home

Discussion Communities: Merit Network Email List Archives

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)

  • From: steve wolff
  • Date: Thu Jul 26 16:54:34 2001

Comments inline...  -s

On Thursday 26 July 2001 16:24, Sean Donelan wrote:
> On Thu, 26 July 2001, steve wolff wrote:
> > With the impending closure of the NSFNET Backbone, and the distfribution
> > of those funds to (academic) regional networks for the purpose of buying
> > backbone service from ISPs on the open market, NSF feared that universal
> > connectivity within the US higher education community might be lost - if
> > all ISPs concerned did not peer with one another.
> The NSF never required ISPs peer with one another.  The requirement
> was to "connect" to the three primary NAPs, not exchange traffic. Universal
> connectivity was an issue we are still dealing with.

NSF placed the requirement on the regionals - not the NAPs nor the ISPs.  
Universal connectivity WAS maintained - for that community.

> > Accordingly, NSF established the NAPs as open exchange points, and the
> > funds distributed to regional networks to buy backbone service had a
> > string attached:  the regionals could only buy from ISPs who agreed to
> > come to one or more NAPs and exchange higher ed traffic.  Thus the
> > universal connectivity of the community NSF was charged to serve was
> > aassured.
> The CIX router had a mandatory peering policy, assuring universal
> connectivity among its members. For several years, the CIX router
> served as the "router of last resort." But some providers didn't
> like that policy.

And still don't...

> Neither MAE-East, or the NAPs had "AUPs" covering traffic exchange.

Quite right; the NAPs were AUP-free - taking advantage of a special 
exemption granted by the US Congress the year before.

> > NSF never intended the NAPs to be the ONLY peering/exchange points, and
> > never contemplated a 'stamp of approval' (or disapproval, for that
> > matter) for anybody else's exchange point; the NAPs were inclusive, not
> > exclusive.

Stephen Wolff                       202 362 7110 voice
Office of the CTO                   202 362 7224 fax
Cisco Systems                       202 427 6752 mobile

Discussion Communities

About Merit | Services | Network | Resources & Support | Network Research
News | Events | Contact | Site Map | Merit Network Home

Merit Network, Inc.