[Napla] Fw: Re: Inicio de intercambio de mensajes / Estado actual de la lista

[Carlos Silva @ csilva.net]

Amigos, por error omití copiar a la lista en mi respuesta
a Bill.

Saludos

---------- Forwarded Message -----------
From: "Carlos Silva @ csilva.net" <csilva at csilva.net>
To: Bill Woodcock <woody at pch.net>
Sent: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 15:19:38 -0600
Subject: Re: [Napla] Inicio de intercambio de mensajes / Estado actual de la 
lista

Bill!!!!

That's the feedback I've been trying to receive during the last
two years since I wrote the paper!!!!

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

I have no other response than really commiting to a careful
review of your points. At the moment my time is devoted
to other activities. But Internet interconection is really the subject
of study I'm focused on and I expect to produce a new paper
by the end of the year. Before that I certainly will exchange a mail
or two with you about the subject.

In the meantime:

a) Sorry for ignoring this I'd never seen distinct definitions for
IXP and NAP, would you point me to some referencea?
b) There is a full list of references at the end of the paper for sources
about actual NAPs deployed, but gime me a couple of weeks and I'll give you 
more detail. I'm glad to see interest in maintaining an updated list.

Best Regards

Carlos

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 13:03:22 -0800 (PST), Bill Woodcock wrote
> First, my usual apology for replying in English.  My Spanish is 
> quite rudimentary, and would be insufficient to convey my thoughts here.
> 
> I'm very much enjoying reading your paper.
> 
> Your stance vis a vis QoS is not clear...  You seem to be suggesting 
> that it will enjoy some success in the future.  Is that in fact your 
> position?  And if so, can you elaborate somewhat on your reasons?
> 
> I'm also not quite clear on the nature of your disagreement with 
> Andrew Odlyzko.  That may be a language issue, for which you have my 
> apology. In any event, if you say you have a disagreement with 
> Andrew, that will raise many people's critical scrutiny, and you 
> should probably be prepared to both be very clear, and to defend 
> what you're saying.  It would also be worthwhile speaking with 
> Andrew directly, if you haven't already, to make sure that you're 
> not misinterpreting what he's intending to say.
> 
> Your points regarding a likely future in which metered-rate billing 
> will become more predominant seem very well-made and well-supported.
> 
> In discussing the formation of the NAPs, you might mention that the 
> MAE in Washington slightly pre-dated the NII NAPs, and was 
> "grandfathered in" to the plan, unlike the others.  Its creation was 
> not promoted by the NSF, like the other three.  Also, you have a 
> couple of translation errors in that paragraph...  "NFS" and "MAE Center."
> 
> Throughout, you use the Latin American construction of "NAP" as 
> equivalent to IXP, as well as literally as NAP, and since NAP and 
> IXP are not themselves equivalent in meaning, this construction is 
> unlikely to be understood in the sense that you mean it, by readers 
> outside of Latin America.  About two-thirds of the way through the 
> paper, you explicitly say "The ability to connect at local IXP's 
> (sic) (Inter (sic) eXchange Points, i.e. NAP's(sic))" which would be 
> pretty universally recognized as factually incorrect.  So that 
> should probably be disambiguated throughout, with the standard usage 
> of IXP where you mean IXP, and NAP only where you literally mean NAP,
>  rather than where you mean IXP.
> 
> Your assertion that no Latin America operator is of sufficient scale,
>  particularly relative to US or European operators, to make extra-
> regional acquisitions could be disputed, I think...  Telmex is 
> certainly of sufficient scale, and was in fact in acquisitions talks 
> with XO, a major US "tier 1" carrier, at one point.
> 
> You list the following quantities of IXPs in Latin American countries:
> 
>    Brazil: 8
>   Ecuador: 2
> Argentina: 1
>  Colombia: 1
>      Cuba: 1
>     Chile: 1
>      Peru: 1
>    Panama: 1
>  Paraguay: 1
> 
> I'd very much like to compare notes, as I'm only aware of five 
> actually in operation in Brazil, would dispute the interpretation of 
> ETECSA's transit service as an IXP based on what information I've 
> had from them about it, but would be happy to learn otherwise...  Is 
> the Nicaraguan IX in Managua not actually in operation?  I show that 
> it had ten participants in April of 2004...  Also, there are two in 
> Equador, to the best of my knowledge: one in Quito with six 
> participants, and one in Guayaquil with six participants.  In 
> addition, I have heard rumors of two other exchanges in Panama, and 
> one other in Argentina, one other in Chile, and one other in 
> Colombia, all of which would be useful to put to rest, if possible.  
> Since you don't cite your sources for your list of IXPs, and it 
> clearly wasn't coming from our directory, I'd be very curious as to 
> where your information was coming from, so I can check any 
> discrepancies and update our directory where necessary.
> 
> All in all, this is an excellent paper, and I'm very happy to see 
> it.  Please let me know if I or my staff can be of any help in 
> running down references or figures.
> 
>                                 -Bill

Saludos,

-cs
csilva at csilva.net
------- End of Forwarded Message -------


Saludos,

-cs
csilva at csilva.net