nanog mailing list archives
Re: NAP Architecture
From: dlr () bungi com (Dave Rand)
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 09:17:48 PST
[In the message entitled "Re: NAP Architecture" on Oct 29, 8:25, "Ben Kirkpatrick, ELI" writes:]
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.
This is a critical issue now. MFS is charging up to $1000 per 50' stretch of wire, for cross-connects between consenting parties at mae-west. I think this is bit high, for $27 worth of wire, and $300 worth of labour. Is there a way that we can collectively negotiate a lower rate for private cross connects at the maes? -- Dave Rand dlr () bungi com http://www.bungi.com
Current thread:
- Re: NAP Architecture, (continued)
- Re: NAP Architecture Alex Rubenstein (Oct 29)
- Re: NAP Architecture Bill Manning (Oct 29)
- Re: NAP Architecture Alex Rubenstein (Oct 30)
- Re: NAP Architecture bmanning (Oct 30)
- Re: NAP Architecture Alex Rubenstein (Oct 30)
- Re: NAP Architecture bmanning (Oct 30)
- Re: NAP Architecture Alex Rubenstein (Oct 30)
- Re: NAP Architecture Leigh Porter (Oct 29)
- Re: NAP Architecture Deepak Jain (Oct 29)
- Re: NAP Architecture Ben Kirkpatrick, ELI (Oct 29)
- Message not available
- Re: NAP Architecture Jay R. Ashworth (Oct 29)
- Re: NAP Architecture Ben Kirkpatrick, ELI (Oct 29)
- Re: NAP Architecture Bill Manning (Oct 29)