nanog mailing list archives
Re: Routing registry was Re: Sprint BGP filters in 207.x.x.x?
From: Jeff Hayward <J.Hayward () utexas edu>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 95 9:31:09 CST
Gordon Cook writes: Good point Jeff. Sprint did get SOME inter regional connectivity money. For that they supposedly had to connect to ALL the NAPs (besides their own). they were supposed to make the connections a year ago. They were what 6 to 9 months late in connecting to Pac bell nap? So if they were supposed to use the services of the routing arbiter and appear to have renigged on this, what can anyone do?? Are they determined to make it painfully obvious for all to see that there are no enforcement teeth left at the NSF? The NSF funded regionals, not NSPs. There is no requirement in NSF93-52 that makes use of the RA mandatory. The only requirement placed on the regional's choice of NSP is connection to all priority NAPS. As the NAPS were significantly late in becoming operational, and are less significant to the operation of the continental infrastructure than originally planned, one can hardly take any particular NSP to task for being late to connect to all of them. -- Jeff Hayward
Current thread:
- Re: Routing registry was Re: Sprint BGP filters in 207.x.x.x? Jeff . Ogden (Dec 13)
- Re: Routing registry was Re: Sprint BGP filters in 207.x.x.x? Gordon Cook (Dec 13)
- Re: Routing registry was Re: Sprint BGP filters in 207.x.x.x? Jeff Hayward (Dec 14)
- Re: Routing registry was Re: Sprint BGP filters in 207.x.x.x? Sean Doran (Dec 16)
- Re: Routing registry was Re: Sprint BGP filters in 207.x.x.x? Gordon Cook (Dec 13)