nanog mailing list archives
5 NAPs Any savings?
From: Deepak Jain <deepak () jain com>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 22:10:00 -0500 (EST)
Here is the question that occurred to me. If we set a requirement to be at 5 NAPs, and we don't peer with anyone who isn't at 5 NAPs, and we only peer with like 4 networks that qualify, aren't we essentially talking about using GigaSwitch or ATM switches as private interconnects? [barring the defaulting issue on FDDI] If whole point is to exclude networks due to a number of technical reasons why go to 5 or 20 NAPs when private connects would serve the same purpose? Or is it some kind of bragging thing where a network can say "We went to the time and expense of engineering connections to 5 NAPs and now no one qualifies for peering with us." Wouldn't the obvious question be, "Why did you bother then?" For several organizations it isn't the money that is really a question with multiple NAPs, but the marginal value of the next NAP after you are already at 3 or 4 whatever is considered acceptable/comfortable. [Economic theory, sorry] Anyone agree? -Deepak. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- 5 NAPs Any savings? Deepak Jain (Oct 29)
- Re: 5 NAPs Any savings? Robert Bowman (Oct 29)
- Re: 5 NAPs Any savings? Nathan Stratton (Oct 30)
- Re: 5 NAPs Any savings? Robert Bowman (Oct 29)