[13120] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NAP Architecture
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ben Kirkpatrick, ELI)
Wed Oct 29 12:46:02 1997
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 09:30:59 -0800 (PST)
From: "Ben Kirkpatrick, ELI" <blkirk@float.eli.net>
To: Dave Rand <dlr@bungi.com>
cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <m0xQbkb-0000FTC@daver.bungi.com>
On Wed, 29 Oct 1997, Dave Rand wrote:
> [In the message entitled "Re: NAP Architecture" on Oct 29, 8:25, "Ben Kirkpatrick, ELI" writes:]
> > Forgive my ignorance on these matters, but why haven't many NAPS tried
> > to be L1 based, or at least provide the option of private wire/fiber
> > between the larger customers in the same room. It seems to me that this
> > would significantly reduce the complexity and packet-loss we're currently
> > seeing. How long would it take to troubleshoot a cross-over FE compared
> > to trouble shooting two routers connected via a oversubscribed switch.
> > Marketing types are concerned about how to bill and track these, but
> > there should be some easy ways around those issues.
>
> This is a critical issue now. MFS is charging up to $1000 per 50'
> stretch of wire, for cross-connects between consenting parties at
> mae-west.
>
> I think this is bit high, for $27 worth of wire, and $300 worth of
> labour.
>
> Is there a way that we can collectively negotiate a lower rate for private
> cross connects at the maes?
>
Yes, by competition. A smaller telco should offer a better rate at nearby
sites. However, then you loose whatever you invested in getting a rack at
each NAP.
--Ben Kirkpatrick
"Consciousness: that annoying time between naps."
PS: Probable ELI OC192 cut 25miles south of Seattle (again). Who's laying
new fiber on the I-5 corridor and running us over?
