As stated in my earlier note, NSF's goal is to obtain NAP functionality. This functionality is technology independent. The whole purpose of the note was to point out that the desired functionality can be met by taking advantage of an existing facility.
But it really is differnt than a NAP. There is policy stuff stuck to a "NAP". MAE-East has no requirement for traffic statistics reporting to the NSF on a periodic basis. Do we want them to? I don't know; personally, I don't think its their business. I don't want to have MFS have to do this sort of stuff.
Thus, an ISP who wanted to check off that they were meeting the NAP functionality that NSF was requesting could do so by saying they were doing so in part by being connected to MAE-east. This is the clear gain that you were asking for: simplification for some of the ISPs.
Sorry, I still don't get it. How is this simpler for *me*. I don't have a compelling need to "check-off" anything. I don't see how this simpler for any of the existing MAE-East participants, either.
Since it appears the act of putting a NAP label on MAE-east does not seem to have an impact on the functioning of MAE-east, is there any reason not to do so?
Shall we just get down to it: it's as much an emotinal issue as anything. MAE-East was built almost in spite of the the existing ANS/NSFNET NSF-sponsored network. Any now they want to come along to a facility which "we" built already, which has been a popular success and model of inter-ISP cooperation and burden it with this government label which none of us seeks. And then hold it up as a successful implementation of the network architecture proposed by the NSF; it would be a farce. NSF threw a party in Washington DC called the NAP, and nobody came. Please let us be. The reason not label it a NAP is because some of us just don't WANT you to. It's our party. If other MAE-East party-goers, er, particpants have a different opinion, I'd be happy to hear it. Peter, at this point you probably should post a polite note to the mae-east mailing list to see what other think about this harmless idea of yours; I don't know how many of them are on this list. Louis A. Mamakos louie@alter.net Backbone Architecture & Engineering Guy uunet!louie AlterNet / UUNET Technologies, Inc. 3110 Fairview Park Drive., Suite 570 Voice: +1 703 204 8023 Falls Church, Va 22042 Fax: +1 703 204 8001