Re: different thinking on exchanging traffic
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 22:02:47 -0500 (CDT) From: Tim Salo <salo@networkcs.com> To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: different thinking on exchanging traffic [...] I believe that all four of the winning NSFNET NAP submissions proposed nationwide "NAPs". I believe that the reason they didn't happen is that the NSF asked for and assumed it would get four geographically-focused solutions. I suspect that the notion of awarding four NAPs, all of which covered all of the country, provided the NSF a certain amount of heartburn. I believe that the nationwide NAP concept died, (or was killed), at the time for administrative, not technical, reasons. But, this is all speculation on my part... [...]
A presumably well informed observer sent me private e-mail that questioned my account. I read only one of the winning NAP proposals, the one I worked on. My speculation that all of the winning proposals talked about nationwide NAPs was based on conversations after the fact, including with authors of competing proposals. So, I believe that all of those who submitted winning NAP proposals were thinking about nationwide NAPs, but some may not have, based on the e-mail I received, included those thoughts in their proposals. At any rate, my thesis is that the concept of a nationwide layer-two solution has been around for several years, at least since the time that the NAP proposals were written. I might add, however, that we are collectively still learning about how best to make use of these very large layer-two services. -tjs
Tim Actually - the idea of the NAPs (as defined in 1992) was an evolutionary idea from the FIXs. MAE-East was the 1st prototype NAP. But even during the discussion of NAPS in 1991 (NEXs then, From P Ford and HWB) and 1992 - I remember discussions at the same time for layer 2 peering points by Tony Hain, Geoff Huston and others with regards to the east and west fixes. Yes, this idea has been around for a very long time. bob At 10:41 PM 5/26/98 -0500, you wrote:
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 22:02:47 -0500 (CDT) From: Tim Salo <salo@networkcs.com> To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: different thinking on exchanging traffic [...] I believe that all four of the winning NSFNET NAP submissions proposed nationwide "NAPs". I believe that the reason they didn't happen is that the NSF asked for and assumed it would get four geographically-focused solutions. I suspect that the notion of awarding four NAPs, all of which covered all of the country, provided the NSF a certain amount of heartburn. I believe that the nationwide NAP concept died, (or was killed), at the time for administrative, not technical, reasons. But, this is all speculation on my part... [...]
A presumably well informed observer sent me private e-mail that questioned my account.
I read only one of the winning NAP proposals, the one I worked on. My speculation that all of the winning proposals talked about nationwide NAPs was based on conversations after the fact, including with authors of competing proposals. So, I believe that all of those who submitted winning NAP proposals were thinking about nationwide NAPs, but some may not have, based on the e-mail I received, included those thoughts in their proposals.
At any rate, my thesis is that the concept of a nationwide layer-two solution has been around for several years, at least since the time that the NAP proposals were written. I might add, however, that we are collectively still learning about how best to make use of these very large layer-two services.
-tjs
Robert J. Aiken (Bob), Network Research Mgr, US DOE / ER-31 aiken@er.doe.gov, 301-903-9960, 301-903-7774 (fax) Nec Temere, Nec Timide - "Neither Rashly or timidly"
participants (2)
-
Bob Aiken -
Tim Salo