nanog mailing list archives
RE: the Internet Backbone
From: John Curran <jcurran () bbnplanet com>
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 13:07:39 -0500
At 12:35 PM 4/5/96, Jim Browning wrote:
There is no clear consensus concerning which of the facilities are "NAPs", let alone which ones an ISP should participate in to be considered a credible National/Backbone provider. For instance, while MAE-West was not one of the original NAPs established by NSF, it clearly qualifies in all other respects. On the other hand, I don't think it would be considered necessary to be at LA, Phoenix, Tucson, Dallas, etc right now to be considered a National/Backbone provider.
Oh, I fully agree.
The criteria I've heard most frequently is "connected to three of the NAPs, peering with at least 2 national providers at each of those NAPs". I believe this is what MCI requires in order to establish peering with a new entity...
Mumble. Presumably, not every national provider will require peering with at least two others before agreeing to peer... the possibilities for deadlock seem a tad high. /John
Current thread:
- Re: the Internet Backbone, (continued)
- Re: the Internet Backbone Mark Boolootian (Apr 05)
- Re: the Internet Backbone Avi Freedman (Apr 05)
- Re: the Internet Backbone Christopher E. Stefan (Apr 07)
- Re: the Internet Backbone Avi Freedman (Apr 07)
- Re: the Internet Backbone Roy (Apr 07)
- Re: the Internet Backbone Mark S. Fedor (Apr 08)
- Re: the Internet Backbone Avi Freedman (Apr 08)
- Re: the Internet Backbone Mark S. Fedor (Apr 08)
- Re: the Internet Backbone Paul A Vixie (Apr 05)
- Re: the Internet Backbone Christian Nielsen (Apr 05)
- Re: the Internet Backbone Dave Siegel (Apr 06)
- Re: the Internet Backbone @NANOG-LIST (Apr 06)
- Re: the Internet Backbone Michael Dillon (Apr 05)
- Re: the Internet Backbone Avi Freedman (Apr 05)