[10191] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: PacBell
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stephen Stuart)
Tue Jun 24 17:15:09 1997
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue, 24 Jun 97 14:53:20 -0400.
<Pine.LNX.3.95.970624145218.7914D-100000@netrail.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 97 13:44:03 -0700
From: Stephen Stuart <stuart@pa.dec.com>
> On Tue, 24 Jun 1997, J.D. Falk wrote:
>
> > Well, due to the lack of traffic, here's a question that
> > I've been pondering...are there any good reasons (besides
> > MCI's peering requirements) to go into the Pac Bell NAP
> > as well as MAE-West and the PAIX?
>
> YES, PACBell is MUCH more stable. PAIX is ok, but just not enough people
> there to be worth while
It is true that there are more people at PacBell and MAE-West than
there are at PAIX (for now).
How that factors into the relative worth of connecting at an exchange
point is up to the individual. While Nathan may feel that there are
not enough people there to be worthwhile, there are others who feel
that there are, or who assign that factor a lower weight when deciding
where to go.
Every exchange point has its pros and cons. How they are weighted is
up to the individual.
There are good reasons to go to PAIX, and good reasons to go to
PacBell. They depend on what you want out of an exchange point. The
more information you provide about what you want from an exchange
point, the more likely that the discussion will objectively evaluate
the exchange points against your criteria. The less you provide, the
more likely we'll all just rehash the obvious.
Stephen
