|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Comments
Dave, I haven't seen a followup on my reply back to you, but I've been doing some more thinking along these lines, and talking with several other people, and there are a few other points for the colocation method that I think also should be brought up. One other advantage is that if the NAP is located in a telco CO that has IXC tenants, it should be possible to have IXC lines terminated in routers managed by the NSP's without any LEC loop at all. This will reduce the cost of attachments, in some cases such as DS-3 level attaches, by a significant amount, since just a cross connect would have to be run. This would improve the network management aspects by elimination of an extra organization in the span, esp in cases where an IXC fast packet service is being used for inter-LATA transport. For SONET interconnects at OC-3c, this would also simplify timing issues, since the NAP connection wouldn't require synchronization between IXC and LEC timing sources (though this isn't an issue for DS-3 and T1 links). Also, because no LEC fast packet service would be required, the time to implement the NAP should be shorter, since no new technology and network management services would have to be provided by the LEC. This would allow decoupling of LEC fast-packet services from NAP service, and allow each to move on their appropriate timeframes. This would allow you to accelerate NAP implementation and testing schedules. Obviously, some NSP's might want to take advantage of such services, but they could start off with simple leased lines and might to LEC fast packet services in a gradual fashion, based on cost/reliability tradeoffs. One more advantage, which I understand may not be a good thing from your viewpoint, is that CAP's and other bypass carriers would also have a shot at providing access to the Chicago and SF NAP's, which essentially require the use of LEC loop and fast-packet services now. This would encourage competition and assure lower prices to NAP users, and potentially provide access to advanced services on a faster timeframe than the normal PUC tarriff process allows. Obviously, this is something that you may view differently than your customers, but I still think it's a valid point. This is all consistent with the idea of Keeping It Simple Stupid (KISS), and allow tighter focus on the primary goal of transitioning away from the central backbone provisioning of connectivity between the regionals to the provision of this service through a distributed set of NSP's in a timely and very reliable manner. Again, I feel any aspect of NAP design and provision needs to be examined against this concise goal. Thanks, Milo - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|