[6009] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 5 NAPs Any savings?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rob Liebschutz)
Sun Nov 3 22:35:24 1996
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 96 19:27:44 PST
From: Rob Liebschutz <rob@rjl.com>
To: Deepak Jain <deepak@jain.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue, 29 Oct 1996 22:10:00 -0500 (EST)
>
> 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.
>
At least one of the organizations that you probably have in mind sells
transit over the NAPs.
Rob
