On Wed, 29 Oct 1997, Dave Rand wrote:
[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?
Yes, by competition. A smaller telco should offer a better rate at nearby sites. However, then you loose whatever you invested in getting a rack at each NAP. --Ben Kirkpatrick "Consciousness: that annoying time between naps." PS: Probable ELI OC192 cut 25miles south of Seattle (again). Who's laying new fiber on the I-5 corridor and running us over?