5 NAPs Any savings?

Wed Oct 30 03:10:00 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. 