At 01:01 PM 11/8/97 -0500, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
At the risk of litigation, Kent makes a good point here: how much of the problems we see are engineering based, and how much are (let's say it softly: political?
How many of the smaller/regional providers need to really connect to a MAE? Shouldn't they be multi-homed to two to four providers verses connecting to a MAE and have their traffic ignored b/c of not standing up to most backbone networks peering requirements? OR should backbone providers support more MAEs? I do not think backbone providers will support more MAEs it does not stabilize their networks or increase revenues. Another possibility might be a backbone provider building a shared media exchange point that included transit for their network(s) as well. It would need to have more "open" rules than the current MFS run MAEs do, but also ensure cost effectiveness for the backbone provider as well. Please feel free to take this "off-line" with an email.... -Adam Hersh