North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: 5 NAPs Any savings?
> > 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 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -