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 -------------------------------------------------