The moving finger of Jay R Ashworth, having written:
<SNIP> Jay> Because, more and more as the net penetrates, the traffic is more and Jay> more _local_. Geographically local. My point about MAE-East-in-a-garage Jay> was that there was only _one_ of them; where it _was_ was only thrown Jay> in for spite. Jay> Especially as the net becomes more used for telecommuting, there is Jay> absolutely _no_ sense in my having to telnet from St Pete 30 miles to Jay> Tampa via a router in Maryland or San Francisco, "just" because the two Jay> sites in question decided to buy their connectivity from different Jay> backbones. Yup. Especially in places with a high-density of high-tech, lousy commutes and a high penetration of "home" Internet access and many ISPs. Currently there are at least 60 ISPs serving the San Diego county area. There are LOTS of packets from "home" to "office" that make a round-trip via MAE-West. Some people have decided that this is silly. Even if it is "cost-effective", it *squanders* bandwidth at MAE-West that could best be used for other traffic. I wonder how much bandwidth at the MAEs could be saved if more areas built local low-cost NAPs just for local traffice exchanges? See this URL for details on the SD-NAP project: http://www.caida.org/Caida/caidaix.html