trent's talk on the MAX

David Diaz davediaz at
Wed Feb 3 07:20:10 UTC 1999

Actually, I thought this was a huge mistake for several reasons.  First,
small ISPs today grow into tomorrows large ISPs.  I also thought that a
"killer" apt might push a small NAP into a critical NAP.  VOIP or video
conferencing might help pull larger players into the exchange pt.  If
customers complain to their large ISP that they can video conf. from home
just fine on but not on then they might consider peering
at the exchange.

This comes into play more for foreign NAPs.  Bouncing off a satellite
connection to a US exchange point doesn't do much for VOIP or any real time

As for excluding small players, it also sets precedent for the largest
players to do the same.  Trent's argument of config issues with smaller
players goes away with an RA.  Even more if merit is contracted to maintain

At 7:36 PM -0500 2/1/99, Brett_Watson at wrote:
>someone might mention to trent (i'm watching at home) that the very
>exclusion tactics the "big guys" use to decide not to come to an exchange
>or not peer with someone is precisely what did when they decided
>not to let the "little guys" come to the MAX by saying "they're high
>maintainance".  pot, kettle, black.

Thank you,
David Diaz
Chief Technical Officer
Netrail, Inc

email:   davediaz at
pager: 888-576-1018
office: 888-NETRAIL
Fax:    404 522-2191

Colo facilities: Atlanta-NAP, Miami, Arlington, Chicago, San Francisco

More information about the NANOG mailing list