[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? -- Dave Rand dlr@bungi.com http://www.bungi.com
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?
On Wed, Oct 29, 1997 at 09:30:59AM -0800, Ben Kirkpatrick, ELI wrote:
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.
Well, yeah; but I think the question was: how do they justify that price? Anything _more_ useful than "what the amrket will bear"?
--Ben Kirkpatrick "Consciousness: that annoying time between naps."
This wasn't an _intentional_ pun, right? :-)
PS: Probable ELI OC192 cut 25miles south of Seattle (again). Who's laying new fiber on the I-5 corridor and running us over?
_192_? Wow. Even _I_ don't make mistakes that big... Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Pedantry. It's not just a job, it's an Tampa Bay, Florida adventure." -- someone on AFU +1 813 790 7592
--Ben Kirkpatrick "Consciousness: that annoying time between naps."
This wasn't an _intentional_ pun, right? :-)
Yes, there was some blind intention to it actually...
PS: Probable ELI OC192 cut 25miles south of Seattle (again). Who's laying new fiber on the I-5 corridor and running us over?
_192_?
Wow. Even _I_ don't make mistakes that big...
No, it's actually the second time this week! Monday something got hit by a truck, and today it was a tree in high winds.
[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?
Being a neutral colo facility, we decided not to charge for interconnects between ISPs....it facilitates the interconnectivity and enhances our NAP and provides backup in case of failure. So far, it has been accepted by a majority of our colo customers. Rick http://www.telehouse.com
participants (4)
-
Ben Kirkpatrick, ELI -
dlr＠bungi.com -
Jay R. Ashworth -
Richard Mataka