Re: trent's talk on the MAX

[David Diaz <davediaz () netrail net>]

Actually, I thought this was a huge mistake for several reasons.  First,
small ISPs today grow into tomorrows large ISPs.  I also thought that a
"killer" apt might push a small NAP into a critical NAP.  VOIP or video
conferencing might help pull larger players into the exchange pt.  If
customers complain to their large ISP that they can video conf. from home
just fine on bob.net but not on tier1.net then they might consider peering
at the exchange.

This comes into play more for foreign NAPs.  Bouncing off a satellite
connection to a US exchange point doesn't do much for VOIP or any real time
apts.

As for excluding small players, it also sets precedent for the largest
players to do the same.  Trent's argument of config issues with smaller
players goes away with an RA.  Even more if merit is contracted to maintain
it.



At 7:36 PM -0500 2/1/99, Brett_Watson () enron net wrote:
> someone might mention to trent (i'm watching at home) that the very
> exclusion tactics the "big guys" use to decide not to come to an exchange
> or not peer with someone is precisely what coop.net did when they decided
> not to let the "little guys" come to the MAX by saying "they're high
> maintainance".  pot, kettle, black.
>
> -brett

Thank you,
David Diaz
Chief Technical Officer
Netrail, Inc

email:   davediaz () netrail net
pager: 888-576-1018
office: 888-NETRAIL
Fax:    404 522-2191


Colo facilities: Atlanta-NAP, Miami, Arlington, Chicago, San Francisco
-------------------------------------------------