On NREN NSF funding [.. an interesting part of the debate over the NAP procurement well worthwhile r

[David Farber <>]

Date: Wed,  2 Mar 1994 10:52:17 -0500 (EST)
From: Marvin Sirbu <ms6b+ () andrew cmu edu>
To: com-priv () psi com, cook () path net (Gordon Cook)
Subject: Re: "Fed **deal** may speed MCI's ATM rollout"
Status: O


Excerpts from internet.com-priv: 1-Mar-94 "Fed **deal** may  speed MC..
by Gordon Cook () path net
> There is also an excellent chance that PSI and UUnet will not interconnect at
> the NSF sponsored NAPs.  If so it could have interesting implications for
> network connectivity.


This is a very interesting spectulation.  May I ask what it is based upon?


Note that, under the conditions that NSF has put on requests by the
regionals for funding, they may purchase access to the NAPS only from a
Network Service Provider which connects to ALL of the NAPS.  Thus, if
PSI and UUnet choose not to interconnect at the NAPs the following
things happen:


1)  PSI would have to give up its current funding from Nysernet


2)  PSI and UUnet become ineligble for receiving NSF funds via any regional


3)  It _may_  (emphasis on may) become more difficult for academic
institutions which are linked via the NAPS to communicate with the
commercial customers of PSI and UUnet.  This could be avoided only if
some third carrier (CORen?) connects to both the NAPS and the CIX and
thus routes the traffic to PSI and UUnet via the CIX instead of via the
NAPs.  Since it cannot be commercially attractive for PSI or UUnet to
make it impossible for their commercial customers to interact with
academic insitutions, one would be forced to believe they are counting
on the second solution.  But the second solution simply means that some
third network has to get paid for transit traffic between the CIX and
the NAPS; how is that in PSI or UUnet's commercial interest?


Accordingly, I conclude that your speculation is absurd on its face.


Marvin Sirbu


Date: Sat, 5 Mar 94 17:31:20 -0500
From: rick () uunet uu net (Rick Adams)
To: com-priv () psi com
Subject: Re: "Fed **deal** may speed MCI's ATM rollout"




> on the second solution.  But the second solution simply means that some
> third network has to get paid for transit traffic between the CIX and
> the NAPS; how is that in PSI or UUnet's commercial interest?
>
> Accordingly, I conclude that your speculation is absurd on its face.
>
> Marvin Sirbu




Let me put it simply to you.


At this time I am not aware of any reason to connect to the NSF NAPs. They
serve no purpose (other than perhaps a continuation of empire building
by certain government agencies)


Similarly, I see no reason for MAE east particiapnts to "transition" to an
NSF funded NAP in DC. The only difference is that the NSF funded NAP
cost more money to the participances. Gee thanks Steve... Great idea
to PAY someone to deliver a service more expensive than already
provided commercially. Almost as brilliant as defining a NAP in New
York City where there are no providers to connect to it.


Of course if some reason materializes to connect to a NAP, then
we might consider it, but don't count on it happening just to
saitisfy NSF invented "needs"




If NSF would get the hell out of the way and stop confusing things
with bad ideas like NAPs, you would see a nice stable set of interconnect
points materialize WITHOUT governement money or meddling. Right now, the
only ones connecting to the NAPS will be the ones who are afraid not to




--rick




Date: 6 Mar 1994 11:23:23 -0800
From: "Dan Lynch" <dlynch () interop com>
Subject: Re: "Fed **deal** may speed
To: "Rick Adams" <rick () uunet uu net>
Cc: "com-priv" <com-priv () psi com>


        Reply to:   RE>>"Fed **deal** may speed
Rick,  Thanks for the clarification on NAPs from th estandpoint of your
commercial view.  Let me try to put words in your mouth that would be even more
clarifying for end users.  Are you saying that there is no technical reason
(that is, packets would still flow to/from all destinations on the Internet)
and no financial reason (that is, it does not save (or make) you money) for
your company to utilize the NAPs?


Thanks,
Dan