5 NAPs Any savings?

Rob Liebschutz rob at rjl.com
Mon Nov 4 03:27:44 UTC 1996


> 
> 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. 
> 

At least one of the organizations that you probably have in mind sells
transit over the NAPs.

Rob







More information about the NANOG mailing list