NAP Architecture

Ben Kirkpatrick wrote:

   Forgive my ignorance on these matters, but why haven't many NAPS tried
to be L1 based, or at least provide the option of private wire/fiber
between the larger customers in the same room. It seems to me that this
would significantly reduce the complexity and packet-loss we're currently
seeing. How long would it take to troubleshoot a cross-over FE compared
to trouble shooting two routers connected via a oversubscribed switch.
   Marketing types are concerned about how to bill and track these, but
there should be some easy ways around those issues.

--Ben Kirkpatrick
Data Products, Electric Lightwave, DID=360.816.3508
-not speaking for ELI, not even speaking-
"Consciousness: that annoying time between naps."

This *is* becoming more popular; in the US, the main problem is that many
(most?) of the exchange points are operated by telcos, who are tariffed.
This means that any connection between separate entities is a "circuit"
that they must charge a certain minimum amount for. As more telcos manage
to move their exchange point operations into the non-regulated portion of
their respected businesses, this may change, and exchanges are currently
being built by non-telco entities, which are allowed to have more
reasonable charges to connect cages in the same facility together.
(Disclaimer: in my other life, I work for one such facility... the PAIX in
Palo Alto)

Personally, I see this mix of "public" and "private" exchange in the same
facility as being a necessary evolution of the infrastructure of the net;
one size definitely does not fit all.