Re: Ungodly packet loss rates

["Kent W. England" <kwe () 6SigmaNets com>]

At 04:49 PM 21-10-96 -0700, Michael Dillon wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Oct 1996, Jon Zeeff wrote:
>
> > In other words, the big players don't like the "open" naps and 
> > are deliberately not installing sufficient bandwidth to them?
>
> No, the open NAP's are bad engineering and the big players are fixing the
> topology by routing around them.

If you want a private interconnect to avoid having to deal with 100 peering
requests per week from every Tom, Dick and Harriet's web page services, OK.

But there isn't any gee-whiz technology that you can do at a private
interconnect
that you can't do at a NAP/MAE. Open NAPs aren't bad engineering.

--Kent
speaking as a consultant to PacBell NAP services

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -