Re: Comments

[Peter Dawe <peter () unipalm co uk>]

Stephen Wolff wrote ...

> > So long as ALL NSPs agree to peer at MAE-East then things should be OK, as no
> > transit is needed because all the regionals are connected by their individual
> > service provider. However there is no REQUIREMENT to peer. I am looking for
> > NSF to make this a requirement (at least for a year or so) to ensure continued
> > ubiquitous connectivity.
>
> It **IS** a requirement of NSF - if you connect to any NAP, but not if
> you connect to MAE-East, the CIX, the GIX, the SWAB or the Dundalk
> Consolidated International Three Hundred Baud Interconnect (local reference).
> The NSF-sponsored NAPs are the only places where we have the right to 
> shape policy.
>
> -s

...end
Sorry, I can't let you get away with that statement! You can shape
peering policy WITHOUT specifying the location of the interconnect.

The customer wants connectivity, not NAPs! Why doesn't NSF specify
connectivity rather than means? Does NFS want to ensure IT controls
the Internet by controling some of the major interconnect?

Hell I keep getting more and more paranoid

Peter

Internet:- The right to say what you want to the world, and for them not to listen




- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -