Hmm..... NAP operators making judgement about content... Hmm... I wonder if there are any applicable precedents here... -alan ......... Steven Schnell is rumored to have said: ] ] Convenient for some, a headache for others. Any responsible NAP operator ] would have to either approve the application running on his network or ] shutdown its unauthorized operation. You know, like disable its ] connection to the exchange point! ] ] steve ] ] ] On Wed, 17 Jul 1996, Jim Fleming wrote: ] ] > On Wednesday, July 17, 1996 4:51 AM, Tim Salo[SMTP:salo@msc.edu] wrote: ] > <snip> ] > @ ] > @ More interestingly, if someone wants to create an alternative set of ] > @ root servers, there is no particularly good reason for them to be located ] > @ at exchange points, (unless I am confused about what networks are all ] > @ about...). True, servers at exchange points should exhibit greater ] > @ availability, but that is probably not the largest challenge faced by ] > @ alternative root servers. ] > @ ] > ] > These are very good points. I think that the exchange points ] > are just convienant co-location sites. Also, in the future, there ] > may be other services on those boxes that have not been ] > announced yet. It is useful to have the boxes in strategic ] > locations in advance of additional changes. ] > ] > -- ] > Jim Fleming ] > UNETY Systems, Inc. ] > Naperville, IL ] > ] > e-mail: JimFleming@unety.net ] > ] > ] ]