From: "Peter S. Ford" <peter@goshawk.lanl.gov> To: Gordon Cook <cook@Mcs.Net> Cc: iepg@iepg.org, nanog@merit.edu, nap-info@merit.edu Subject: Re: Comments Date: Fri, 09 Sep 94 16:55:34 MST [...] An obvious result of deliberation on the issues at hand would be to simply relabel the things as MAE/GIX/NAP and be done with it.
Any such arrangement would of course be contingent on an agreement between the entity that has contracted with MFS to provide MAE-East, and the entity (NSF) who have a cooperative agreement with MFS to furnish the DC NAP service. NSF would welcome the opportunity to open talks that might lead to such an agreement. [...]
Was the NSF ever presented with an opportunity to open the talks you suggested? -tjs
Any such arrangement would of course be contingent on an agreement between the entity that has contracted with MFS to provide MAE-East, and the entity (NSF) who have a cooperative agreement with MFS to furnish the DC NAP service. NSF would welcome the opportunity to open talks that might lead to such an agreement. [...]
Was the NSF ever presented with an opportunity to open the talks you suggested?
Not yet. If the owner of MAE-East wants to drop me or Peter private mail, we can begin. -s
Steve, To borrow from the Bard, "Aye, that's the rub." MFS Datanet provides the service known as MAE-East to a group of customers who created and define it by what they are willing to pay for. There is no single entity which "owns" it in any real sense. MFS owns the facilities which provide the service, but MAE-East as a concept is really more of a cooperative and there isn't any obvious "owner". This is precisely why MFS got in seriously hot water with the MAE-East customers when they wanted to rename MAE-East the DC NAP - MAE-East ain't truly theirs to rename in a very real sense. That's what make responding to your otherwise quite reasonable request rather tricky, short of convening a MAE-East customer plenary, which MFS *has* undertaken once before (when the group was rather smaller). Cheers, -Mike O'Dell
MFS Datanet provides the service known as MAE-East to a group of customers who created and define it by what they are willing to pay for. There is no single entity which "owns" it in any real sense. MFS owns the facilities which provide the service, but MAE-East as a concept is really more of a cooperative and there isn't any obvious "owner".
OK. Customers, no owner. Same arrangement MFS has with NAP-attachers.
This is precisely why MFS got in seriously hot water with the MAE-East customers when they wanted to rename MAE-East the DC NAP - MAE-East ain't truly theirs to rename in a very real sense.
Rightly so. How do you feel about language such as "MAE-East, a.k.a. DC NAP"? Or maybe just not worry about names?
That's what make responding to your otherwise quite reasonable request rather tricky, short of convening a MAE-East customer plenary, which MFS *has* undertaken once before (when the group was rather smaller).
Are the MAE-East participants required to subscribe to CIX-like "must carry" and "no settlements" agreements? Or - more to the point - have they agreed not to enter into bi- or multi-lateral agreements with other IP carriers they may stumble across on the MFS DC infrastructure. I.e., is it permissible for some or all of the MAE-East participant/customers to make "arrangements" with some or all of the DC NAP customers? If so, that's the desired (by NSF) result; I'll shut up and stay out of the way, and let the historians worry about what was named what. If not, perhaps we can find a way to negotiate in absurdity avoidance mode. -s
Are the MAE-East participants required to subscribe to CIX-like "must carry" and "no settlements" agreements? Or - more to the point - have they agreed not to enter into bi- or multi-lateral agreements with other IP carriers they may stumble across on the MFS DC infrastructure. I.e., is it permissible for some or all of the MAE-East participant/customers to make "arrangements" with some or all of the DC NAP customers?
MAE-East participants are not required to subscribe to "must carry" or "no settlement" agreements. Participants peer with some set of other participants with exclusively bi-lateral agreements. As it turns out, at least in the case of AlterNet, we have *only* "no settlements" type of peering arrangements. I don't know of any "settlements" based agreement over MAE-East, but that's not to say that they don't exist. I'm pretty certain that AlterNet wouldn't enter into such an agreement. I don't know how MAE-East participants/customers would make arrangements with the DC NAP customers, since they're on a seperate, unconnected level-2 infrastructure.
If so, that's the desired (by NSF) result; I'll shut up and stay out of the way, and let the historians worry about what was named what.
NAP, in my mind, implies a government designated facility of some sort. I personally would like to keep that label off of MAE-East. It might be useful in the future to have this private-sector "showcase" available to help combat stupid legislative attempts. Again, that's my personal opinion, and may not even be shared by others here at UUNET/AlterNet 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
NAP, in my mind, implies a government designated facility of some sort. I personally would like to keep that label off of MAE-East. It might be useful in the future to have this private-sector "showcase" available to help combat stupid legislative attempts. Again, that's my personal opinion, and may not even be shared by others here at UUNET/AlterNet
OK. I see no compelling reason to identify the character strings "MAE-East" and "DC NAP". Tnx, -s
In message <QQxiif23818.199409211525@rodan.UU.NET>, "Louis A. Mamakos" writes: | NAP, in my mind, implies a government designated facility of some | sort. I personally would like to keep that label off of MAE-East. It | might be useful in the future to have this private-sector "showcase" | available to help combat stupid legislative attempts. Again, that's | my personal opinion, and may not even be shared by others here at | UUNET/AlterNet While I have no objection to naming MAE-EAST the D.C. NAP, Louis does make an interesting argument, which, not long ago, I would have found compelling. Now I'm quite corrupted, and suggest perhaps we could compromise by designating MAE-EAST as a private-sector, privately-run touchdown point that the NSF considers "functionally equivalent to the D.C. NAP". I also wouldn't mind anyone pointing out that MAE-EAST predates the whole concept of NAPs by quite a bit, with conclusions to be drawn by whoever cares to make them. Sean.
Rightly so. How do you feel about language such as "MAE-East, a.k.a. DC NAP"? Or maybe just not worry about names?
I would not worry about the name. Names seem to be a very politically charged issue.
Are the MAE-East participants required to subscribe to CIX-like "must carry" and "no settlements" agreements? Or - more to the point - have they agreed not to enter into bi- or multi-lateral agreements with other IP carriers they may stumble across on the MFS DC infrastructure. I.e., is it permissible for some or all of the MAE-East participant/customers to make "arrangements" with some or all of the DC NAP customers?
MAE-East participants are not required to make any particular sort of agreements (or, in fact, any agreements at all); its all bilateral agreements of what ever form the parties involved come up with. Most of the MAE-East peering agreements that I know about are of the 'no settlements' form, but I am not privy to all of the agreements, so there may be some that involve settlements of one sort or another. I am aware of some folks on MAE-East that peer with everybody else. I am aware of some folks on MAE-East that peer with just a few others and explicately do not peer with some (typically for traffic engineering issues). --asp@uunet.uu.net (Andrew Partan)
As a new member of the group I would agree with Mike. I like the fact that there is no one owner at the MAE. He does have a suggestion inserted in the reply.. A meeting. The technical people I have spoken with are top shelf all the way. At MAE east you have some of the best talent available. Together these people can solve problems. I for one would not like to see the label "NAP" attached to MAE East. Customers have expressed concern over this. All in all the thought of find a solution to the NSF problem is something NET99 would support. Joseph Stroup
As a new member of the group I would agree with Mike. I like the fact that there is no one owner at the MAE. He does have a suggestion inserted in the reply.. A meeting. The technical people I have spoken with are top shelf all the way. At MAE east you have some of the best talent available. Together these people can solve problems. I for one would not like to see the label "NAP" attached to MAE East. Customers have expressed concern over this. All in all the thought of find a solution to the NSF problem is something NET99 would support.
Probably don't even need a meeting. Nobody speaks for the participants in MAE-East. Nobody speaks for the customers of the DC NAP. Looks like we just let 'em all alone to make whatever peering arrangements seem appropriate, trusting that a universally-shared belief is that greater connectivity is better than less (where "better" means "more pleasing to my customers"). -s
participants (8)
-
asp＠uunet.uu.net -
Joseph W. Stroup -
Louis A. Mamakos -
Mike O'Dell -
Peter S. Ford -
Sean Doran -
Stephen Wolff -
tjs＠msc.edu