Re: Best way to deal with bad advertisements?

[salo () msc edu (Tim Salo)]

> Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 6:21:11 -0500 (CDT)
> From: Sean Donelan <SEAN () SDG DRA COM>
> To: nanog () merit edu
> Subject: Re: Best way to deal with bad advertisements?
>
> >  Just to add a bit to that, the US Government could force providers
> >  to peer with all providers meeting certain requirements (enter
> >  telco history) but I think there would be difficulty requiring
> >  them to peer with non-US companies.
>
> Actually the US Government already has such a policy.  Buried deep
> inside the original NSF NAP solicitation was the requirement any
> provider must peer with any other provider connected to all three
> priority NAPs, or it would not qualify as an NSP for NSF connection
> grants.

The solicitation, NSF 93-52, specifies that "To qualify for NSF support
for NSP attachment and/or for the provision of interNAP connectivity,
a regional network must attach to an NSP that connects all NSF-
specified priority NAPs." (Section III.F)

Note the use of the term "connects."

I didn't re-read the whole solicitation, but I believe it is silent on
the topic of peering.  There were some conversations on this topic after
the fact, so something reguarding peering might be in some of the
relevant cooperative agreements.  However, these agreements might apply
only to research and educations traffic.

>  There was no requirement for minimum connection speed to
> a NAP or between the NAPs to qualify as an NSP.
>       [...]

Solicitation NSF 93-52 specifies "Networks attaching to NAPs must operate
at speeds of 1.5 Mbps or greater and must be able to switch both IP
and CLNP packets." (Section III.F).

-tjs
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -