[5912] in North American Network Operators' Group
5 NAPs Any savings?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Deepak Jain)
Tue Oct 29 22:17:05 1996
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 22:10:00 -0500 (EST)
From: Deepak Jain <deepak@jain.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Here is the question that occurred to me.
If we set a requirement to be at 5 NAPs, and we don't peer with anyone
who isn't at 5 NAPs, and we only peer with like 4 networks that qualify,
aren't we essentially talking about using GigaSwitch or ATM switches as
private interconnects? [barring the defaulting issue on FDDI]
If whole point is to exclude networks due to a number of technical
reasons why go to 5 or 20 NAPs when private connects would serve the same
purpose? Or is it some kind of bragging thing where a network can say "We
went to the time and expense of engineering connections to 5 NAPs and now
no one qualifies for peering with us." Wouldn't the obvious question be,
"Why did you bother then?" For several organizations it isn't the money
that is really a question with multiple NAPs, but the marginal value of
the next NAP after you are already at 3 or 4 whatever is considered
acceptable/comfortable. [Economic theory, sorry]
Anyone agree?
-Deepak.
