Talk:Network access point

Merge with IXP article

On 6 June 2012 user Ál added a merge template suggesting that the NAP and IXP articles be merged. Other than the merge templates, I don't see any further discussion about or rational for the merge.

For myself, I don't think a merge is a good idea. NAPs are largely historical now, while IXPs are current. It seems like adding historical information about NAPs to the IXP article would be just adding unnecessary clutter. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, in my computing courses it's written that it's the same thing. JackPotte (talk) 11:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NAPs along with the CIX and the FIXs were early examples of public IXPs in the U.S. NAPs were created with the encouragement of the National Science Foundation as part of the transition away from the NSFNET to the more open Internet architecture we know today. NAPs no longer exist. IXPs are a more general concept, aren't limited to the U.S., can be public or private, and exist today. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and removed the marge template from the article. If other editors feel that a merge is still a good idea, we can continue the discussion here. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The confusion largely derives from the fact that the Spanish-speaking Latin American community generally refers to IXPs as NAPs. This is current practice by people who are completely unaware of the original meaning of the word NAP. Without getting into the reasons for it, I actually think that the best resolution would be to redirect NAP to IXP, and have a small section of the IXP article subsuming the historical usage and explaining the current usage. I'm always happy to edit text, but am not really up to getting in wiki-editing-wars with people who care too much about process. So, if anyone else feels like taking the lead on doing so, I'd support it and flesh out the text. Bill Woodcock (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After discussion in various places (which doesn't seem to be reflected here, I added this content as a new "History" section of the Internet Exchange Point article, and user:GB_fan converted this article to a redirect. I also fixed the link on the "NAP" disambiguation page. Bill Woodcock (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First comment

NAP stands for Network Access Point, a public network exchange facility where Internet Service Providers (ISPs) can connect with one another in peering arrangements. The NAPs are a key component of the Internet backbone because the connections within them determine how traffic is routed. They are also the points of most Internet congestion.

So why isn't the above included as part of the article, rather than misplaced here on the Discussion page? Stevenmitchell (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

historical referent

A cite or reference for "the ANS CO+RE scandal" would be good. I'll dig around and see if I have any. jzp 21:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it would... I don't have one off-hand, just my memory of events. Since it predates the web, there doesn't seem to be much online about it. http://www.hpcwire.com/archives/720.html Bill Woodcock 03:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added several refs. Jeff Ogden (talk) 05:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Access Point

This term appears to be synonymous with Network Access Point, eg http://www.minap.it/ and http://www.trefor.net/2014/03/17/the-very-early-days-of-lonap-the-london-neutral-access-point-peeringweek/ John a s (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's a back-formation from the acronym NAP, which as you point out, came from Network Access Point. Marketing folks trying to ride-on-the-coattails while adding the "neutral" keyword. :-) Bill Woodcock (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Network access point. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]