Exchanges that matter...

Fri Nov 29 19:02:24 UTC 1996

> > Would someone be so kind as to email me a list of the Exchanges that
> > matter?  I.E., which ones qualify when calculating your connections for
> > peering?
> > 
> > Is it just the 4 NAP's and MAE-East and MAE-West?

I thought of answering this but I decide that followups to other folks
replies would probably be more useful to the gallery.  I was right:

> Ameritech NAP
> Atlanta NAP :-)
> MAE-East
> MAE-West
> PACBell NAP
> Sprint NAP

In terms of meeting peering requirements, the above list is sufficient
except that the ":-)" has to be read as "just kidding".

Unfortunately for my ulcer, more was said:

> CIX may be worth connecting to as a sales thing, and PAIX is not worth
> connecting to yet because there are so many NAPs in that area.

Connecting to CIX won't help your sales.  It does help your connectivity if
you aren't otherwise able to buy T3 lines to everywhere in the universe, and
it's a fine backup for folks who _can_ afford T3 lines to all of known space.

PAIX is the best NAP-like object in the Bay Area, in my biased view (I'm a
consultant to Digital so the bias is strong).  They have better facilities
than MAE-W and they aren't subject to ATM's cell tax and PUC vagueries the
way Pac Bell's is.  The only thing they don't have is a lot of people to
peer with, which is a good reason _but_the_only_reason_ why they are not in
first place on the west coast.

The higher quality of the facilities and remote hands at PAIX ought to lead
most newcomers to the Bay Area to locate their POP in Palo Alto and run a
T3 line to MAE-W or PB-NAP or both.  The remote hands people at PAIX are
not knuckle dragging frame techs, they are senior-sysadmin-quality
technical people who you would be lucky to be able to hire full time if
they were available.  This makes a huge difference when you want to know
WHICH red light is blinking.

On the other hand the original question was about what you need to connect
to in order to meet Sprint's or AGIS' peering requirements, and the original
answer (a) was correct and (b) did not list DEC PAIX.  Therefore I'm really
not trying to change the answer, I'm answering an entirely different question.

> > Also, do any of you have any comments on whether peering standards might
> > be relaxed if you are setting up a statewide educational network?
> 
> Hmm, possible, but don't count on it. If I were you, I would get connected
> to the NAPs ASAP because it will get harder and harder to peer with the
> big guys as times moves on. 

The big guys are already yanking existing peering sessions down when they
change their requirements.  Getting in early has done nobody any good so far.

We're seeing bifurcation into little guys and big guys.  It remains to be seen
which end of the strata will have the larger total number of endpoints.  If
it's the big guys, they will squeeze the little guys no matter how many of
the little guys band together.  If the little guys own more endpoints then
some kind of collective bargaining will be possible.  My hope rests on this
possibility but please don't bet your money on it.