[Napla] Fw: Re: Inicio de intercambio de mensajes / Estado actual de la lista
Carlos Silva @ csilva.net
csilva at csilva.net
Wed Feb 15 19:28:15 BRST 2006
Amigos, por error omití copiar a la lista en mi respuesta
---------- 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
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.
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.
csilva at csilva.net
------- End of Forwarded Message -------
csilva at csilva.net
More information about the Napla