Milo S. Medin (NASA Ames Research Center) medin at
Thu Sep 8 09:07:48 UTC 1994

Dave, I haven't seen a followup on my reply back to you, but I've been doing
some more thinking along these lines, and talking with several other people,
and there are a few other points for the colocation method that I think
also should be brought up.

One other advantage is that if the NAP is located in a telco CO that has
IXC tenants, it should be possible to have IXC lines terminated in routers
managed by the NSP's without any LEC loop at all.  This will reduce the 
cost of attachments, in some cases such as DS-3 level attaches, by
a significant amount, since just a cross connect would have to be run.
This would improve the network management aspects by elimination of an
extra organization in the span, esp in cases where an IXC fast packet
service is being used for inter-LATA transport.  For SONET interconnects at
OC-3c, this would also simplify timing issues, since the NAP connection
wouldn't require synchronization between IXC and LEC timing sources (though this
isn't an issue for DS-3 and T1 links).

Also, because no LEC fast packet service would be required, the time to
implement the NAP should be shorter, since no new technology and network
management services would have to be provided by the LEC.  This would allow
decoupling of LEC fast-packet services from NAP service, and allow each
to move on their appropriate timeframes.  This would allow you
to accelerate NAP implementation and testing schedules. Obviously, some NSP's
might want to take advantage of such services, but they could start off with 
simple leased lines and might to LEC fast packet services in a gradual fashion,
based on cost/reliability tradeoffs.

One more advantage, which I understand may not be a good thing from your
viewpoint, is that CAP's and other bypass carriers would also have a shot
at providing access to the Chicago and SF NAP's, which essentially require
the use of LEC loop and fast-packet services now. This would encourage
competition and assure lower prices to NAP users, and potentially provide
access to advanced services on a faster timeframe than the normal PUC 
tarriff process allows.  Obviously, this is something that you may view 
differently than your customers, but I still think it's a valid point.

This is all consistent with the idea of Keeping It Simple Stupid (KISS), and 
allow tighter focus on the primary goal of transitioning away from the
central backbone provisioning of connectivity between the regionals to
the provision of this service through a distributed set of NSP's in a timely
and very reliable manner.  Again, I feel any aspect of NAP design and provision 
needs to be examined against this concise goal.


More information about the NANOG mailing list