[13124] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NAP Architecture
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Richard Mataka)
Wed Oct 29 13:16:14 1997
In-Reply-To: <m0xQbkb-0000FTC@daver.bungi.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 12:46:00 -0500
To: dlr@bungi.com (Dave Rand)
From: Richard Mataka <mataka@telehouse.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
>[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?
>
Being a neutral colo facility, we decided not to charge for interconnects
between ISPs....it facilitates the interconnectivity and enhances our NAP
and provides backup in case of failure. So far, it has been accepted by a
majority of our colo customers.
Rick
http://www.telehouse.com
