On Thu, 26 July 2001, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
At the time, the "center of the universe" was AS690, which was paid for by US taxpayer money and consequently had an AUP. The NAPs were envisioned as a transitional mechanism away from that arrangement. A lot of us at the time wondered aloud why NSF needed to provide a stamp of approval on US-based exchange points, as the FIXes, MAE East, and Milo's setup at NASA-Ames were already going concerns without any kind of endorsement from the NSF. Some companies (notably UUnet) thought this was gratuitous enough that they never showed up at any NAPs.
If I recall, the objection was to using ATM for a exchange fabric, because several people thought it was less reliable at the time. I thought UUNET was at the New York NAP (SPRINT Pennsauken, NJ) as well as the MAE-East alternate NAP, which used FDDI. There were several ISPs at that time which only connected to FDDI/Gigaswitch based exchange points, and shunned the ATM exchange points.
Sean Donelan wrote:
On Thu, 26 July 2001, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
.... Some companies (notably UUnet) thought this was gratuitous enough that they never showed up at any NAPs.
If I recall, the objection was to using ATM for a exchange fabric, because several people thought it was less reliable at the time. I thought UUNET was at the New York NAP (SPRINT Pennsauken, NJ) as well as the MAE-East alternate NAP, which used FDDI.
There were several ISPs at that time which only connected to FDDI/Gigaswitch based exchange points, and shunned the ATM exchange points.
As best as I remember, the NY NAP that ended up in NJ was originally supposed to be ATM, but they couldn't get it to work and were behind schedule, so they "temporarily" deployed some FDDI. ATM didn't work very well in Chicago, either.... I also vaguely recall that the 4th regional NAP was supposed to be in the South, and somebody in Texas was selected, but MAE-East shouldered them aside during the resolution process. Much speculation about whether it was political rather than technical. -- William Allen Simpson Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
At the time we were developing the architecture for the NY NAP ATM was supported only via that nasty DXI interface. Costly, less reliable, and not easy to configure. Some of you may recall Tim Salo's working group discussions in that regard. I recall seeing a UUnet router at the Sprint NAP. At least, that's what the dymo label on the front of the 7505 said! Steven -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Sean Donelan Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 15:33 To: rs@seastrom.com Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: NAP History (was RE: The large ISPs and Peering) On Thu, 26 July 2001, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
At the time, the "center of the universe" was AS690, which was paid for by US taxpayer money and consequently had an AUP. The NAPs were envisioned as a transitional mechanism away from that arrangement. A lot of us at the time wondered aloud why NSF needed to provide a stamp of approval on US-based exchange points, as the FIXes, MAE East, and Milo's setup at NASA-Ames were already going concerns without any kind of endorsement from the NSF. Some companies (notably UUnet) thought this was gratuitous enough that they never showed up at any NAPs.
If I recall, the objection was to using ATM for a exchange fabric, because several people thought it was less reliable at the time. I thought UUNET was at the New York NAP (SPRINT Pennsauken, NJ) as well as the MAE-East alternate NAP, which used FDDI. There were several ISPs at that time which only connected to FDDI/Gigaswitch based exchange points, and shunned the ATM exchange points.
participants (3)
-
Sean Donelan -
Steven Schnell -
William Allen Simpson