Ungodly packet loss rates

If you want a private interconnect to avoid having to deal with 100 peering
requests per week from every Tom, Dick and Harriet's web page services, OK.

But there isn't any gee-whiz technology that you can do at a private
that you can't do at a NAP/MAE. Open NAPs aren't bad engineering.

speaking as a consultant to PacBell NAP services

I wasn't referring to the internal engineering of the NAP but to the
overall topology engineering. IMHO it is bad engineering to build a
central exchange point with no bypasses around the exchange point. It's
kind of an 80/20 rule thing in that any two providers that exchange a lot
of traffic at a NAP should really build a private exchange outside the NAP
to keep the NAP facilities available for the 80% of the traffic that needs
to go through a central exchange facility.

BTW, I think that a NAP could be an excellent solution to the problem of
TD&H web services. If the NAP provides facilities like the Digital
facility at Palo Alto, then when TD&H come up and say we want a line right
into the NAP you can say "Sure, no problem, here's a list of the ISP's
that have facilities at the NAP and you can even locate your WWW server
right here at the NAP if you want to".

Sometimes looking at the forest will help you solve problems that are
occurring with the trees.

Michael Dillon - ISP & Internet Consulting
Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-604-546-3049
http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com