[Napla] Inicio de intercambio de mensajes / Estado actual de la lista
woody at pch.net
Wed Feb 15 19:03:22 BRST 2006
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:
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.
More information about the Napla