nanog mailing list archives
RE: NAP Architecture
From: Rodney Joffe <rjoffe () genuity net>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 12:27:45 -0700
-----Original Message----- From: the Riz [SMTP:riz () beast boogers sf ca us] Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 1997 10:07 AM To: blkirk () float eli net Cc: nanog () merit edu Subject: Re: NAP Architecture This *is* becoming more popular; in the US, the main problem is that many (most?) of the exchange points are operated by telcos, who are tariffed. This means that any connection between separate entities is a "circuit" that they must charge a certain minimum amount for. As more telcos manage to move their exchange point operations into the non-regulated portion of their respected businesses, this may change, and exchanges are currently being built by non-telco entities, which are allowed to have more reasonable charges to connect cages in the same facility together. (Disclaimer: in my other life, I work for one such facility... the PAIX in Palo Alto)
Baloney....... I defy anyone to show me a "tariff" for interconnects at a NAP. There is no such thing. 'cos, as y'all know, if it was tariffed, there wouldn't be any 'special' deals. The phrase is "Highway robbery". The problem is they don't even have the class to let you see the gun.
Current thread:
- Re: NAP Architecture, (continued)
- Re: NAP Architecture Alex Rubenstein (Oct 30)
- Re: NAP Architecture Dave Rand (Oct 29)
- Re: NAP Architecture Leigh Porter (Oct 29)
- Re: NAP Architecture Deepak Jain (Oct 29)
- Re: NAP Architecture Dave Rand (Oct 29)
- Re: NAP Architecture Ben Kirkpatrick, ELI (Oct 29)
- Message not available
- Re: NAP Architecture Jay R. Ashworth (Oct 29)
- Re: NAP Architecture Ben Kirkpatrick, ELI (Oct 29)
- Re: NAP Architecture Ben Kirkpatrick, ELI (Oct 29)
- Re: NAP Architecture Richard Mataka (Oct 29)
- Re: NAP Architecture Bill Manning (Oct 29)