nanog mailing list archives
Re: Comments
From: Stephen Wolff <steve () nsf gov>
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 1994 14:34:33 -0500 (EDT)
Sorry, I can't let you get away with that statement! You can shape peering policy WITHOUT specifying the location of the interconnect.
No apology needed :-)
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?
We did a lot of community consulting before settling on the current architecture. It was clear the FTS2000-like solution of another NSFNET Backbone with two or more suppliers was felt to be *too* structured, and the solution of "give the money to the end-user and get out of the way" was too loose for comfort. The NAP/RA/RNP solution had FIX/CIX/MAE-East precedent and, it seemed, just enough structure. NSF hasn't the slightest desire to "control the Internet." If the NAPs aren't useful they won't be used. I should be delighted were the technical community to arrive at a demonstrably better architecture that would be affordable by, and adequately serve, the NSF community. -s - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- Re: Comments, (continued)
- Re: Comments Curtis Villamizar (Sep 02)
- Comments Tony Li (Sep 02)
- Re: Comments Peter Dawe (Sep 02)
- Re: Comments bmanning (Sep 02)
- Re: Comments Milo S. Medin (Sep 02)
- Re: Comments Peter Dawe (Sep 05)
- Re: Comments Gordon Cook (Sep 05)
- Re: Comments Peter Dawe (Sep 06)
- Re: Comments Stephen Wolff (Sep 07)
- Re: Comments Peter Dawe (Sep 07)
- Re: Comments Stephen Wolff (Sep 07)
- Re: Comments Gordon Cook (Sep 07)
- Re: Comments Peter S. Ford (Sep 07)
- Re: Comments Gordon Cook (Sep 08)
- Re: Comments Matt Mathis (Sep 08)
- Re: Comments Peter S. Ford (Sep 09)
- Re: Comments Aaron Nabil (Sep 09)
- Re: Comments Louis A. Mamakos (Sep 09)
- Re: Comments Joseph W. Stroup (Sep 10)
- Re: Comments bmanning (Sep 10)
- Re: Comments Louis A. Mamakos (Sep 10)