Re: NAP History (was RE: The large ISPs and Peering)

[rs () seastrom com (Robert E. Seastrom)]

"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