North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: NAP Architecture
Ben Kirkpatrick wrote: > 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. > > --Ben Kirkpatrick > Data Products, Electric Lightwave, DID=360.816.3508 > -not speaking for ELI, not even speaking- > "Consciousness: that annoying time between naps." > This *is* becoming more popular; in the US, the main problem is that many (most?) of the exchange points are operated by telcos, who are tariffed. This means that any connection between separate entities is a "circuit" that they must charge a certain minimum amount for. As more telcos manage to move their exchange point operations into the non-regulated portion of their respected businesses, this may change, and exchanges are currently being built by non-telco entities, which are allowed to have more reasonable charges to connect cages in the same facility together. (Disclaimer: in my other life, I work for one such facility... the PAIX in Palo Alto) Personally, I see this mix of "public" and "private" exchange in the same facility as being a necessary evolution of the infrastructure of the net; one size definitely does not fit all. +j -- Jeff Rizzo http://boogers.sf.ca.us/~riz
|