With the impending closure of the NSFNET Backbone, and the distfribution of those funds to (academic) regional networks for the purpose of buying backbone service from ISPs on the open market, NSF feared that universal connectivity within the US higher education community might be lost - if all ISPs concerned did not peer with one another. Accordingly, NSF established the NAPs as open exchange points, and the funds distributed to regional networks to buy backbone service had a string attached: the regionals could only buy from ISPs who agreed to come to one or more NAPs and exchange higher ed traffic. Thus the universal connectivity of the community NSF was charged to serve was aassured. NSF never intended the NAPs to be the ONLY peering/exchange points, and never contemplated a 'stamp of approval' (or disapproval, for that matter) for anybody else's exchange point; the NAPs were inclusive, not exclusive. -s On Thursday 26 July 2001 13:07, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:

"Nipper, Arnold" <arnold@nipper.de> writes:

...

Sean Donelan schrieb:

...

exchange points. Some of the additional exchange points have grown very large, such as CIX, MAE-West, LINX, AMS-IX, even though they didn't have NSF's "stamp of approval."

Why should LINX, AMS-IX, DE-CIX or any other European IXP need NSF's "stamp of approval"?

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.

---Rob

-- Stephen Wolff 202 362 7110 voice Office of the CTO 202 362 7224 fax Cisco Systems 202 427 6752 mobile