North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Comments

  • From: Louis A. Mamakos
  • Date: Fri Sep 09 23:28:52 1994

Perhaps I'm being a little defensive..

> 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.

"Hi, I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you."

So, other than confusing the issue, exactly how do I, as an existing
MAE-East participant, win from this arrangement?  Mind you, I don't
speak for "MAE-East", but MAE-East connects ISPs, and the NSF isn't an
ISP, right?  We could talk about letting an RA connect to MAE-East,
but they're not an ISP, either.

I'm sure MFS would be just as happy to take your money to provide
MAE-East service as they would NAP service.  I'm sure their interest
is in keeping their customers happy, and not trying to reduce the
number of products that they offer.

On some other points, the technology used to deliver MAE-East+ is
significantly different than what MFS proposed for the NAP, and the
service is structured differently.  The MAE-East+ technology is
somewhat more conservative in its approach.  It also encourages
private provider/provider connectivity since the high-bandwidth
participants will be colocated in adjacent racks.  That's not to say
that the technology used to deliver a NAP won't work; Alternet has
actually tested the hardware because we may end up using it for other
applications.  Mostly its the KISS principal at work.  Other than
that, both the NAP and MAE-East do move level-2 frames around.

Are there providers that wouldn't connect to MAE-East because it's
missing the blessed "NAP" moniker?  If so, the political forces at
work inside that provider are eclipsing the technical issues, and I'd
think twice about connecting my net to them.  Their job is to move the
bits around, first and foremost.

A more interesting question is to find out which carriers are
connecting to all 3 mandatory NAPs, and to find out if they're already
connected to MAE-East.  If they are, then what's left to do?  Other
than slather on "NAP" baggage that we don't want or need?  Since these
interconnect points already exist, and a so similar to the NAPs, why
are the NAPs required at all since private industry has already gone
off and solved this problem without any help.

"Stop trying to help me.  It's not broken, and doesn't need to be
fixed."

If there is some clear gain in somehow combining these two things,
please let me know.  I don't think that an RA qualifies as a "gain"
since we have an existance proof that we can get along without one of
those already.  A more interesting prospect to consider is hooking
together MAE-East and, say, the FIX.  That *might* actually help.

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -