Re: Peering versus Transit

[matthew () scruz net (Matthew Kaufman)]

From: Bill Woodcock <woody () zocalo net>
Date: Sep 30,  0:40
Subject: Re: Peering versus Transit
>     
...
>     Okay, it's _widely rumored_ that it may be difficult to establish new
>     peering sessions with some large ISPs, at the moment.  :-)  
...
>       


From: Avi Freedman <freedman () netaxs com>
Subject: Re: Peering versus Transit
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 18:20:21 -0400 (EDT)
>
...
> Even those who have steeled themselves to spend the $$$ to build the
> infrastructure needed may find that Sprint still won't (hasn't) peer(ed)
> with them.  At least that's the claim.


Okay. That's two people with the rumor. But that rumor's been around
for a long while.

If you are a provider who has DS3 connectivity into 3 (widely-separated)
high-level exchange points (eg., MAE-E, MAE-W, PB-NAP, AADS-NAP, or
Sprint NAP) *and* you have been unable to get peering with a "major" NSP
(eg., Sprint, MCI, UUNet, PSI, Netcom, AGIS) please mail me. I'm making
a list. In your mail, tell me which exchange points you were at when the
request was made and the outcome (denied, ignored, forwarded to lawyer hell).

I will accept stories from entities that don't quite meet those requirements,
if they are convincing (eg., "We're at MAE-W and MAE-E and LINX and we're
in Germany and we think this oughta be enough")

This list isn't going to be used to go sue people. It is because I (and
several others, I'm sure) are tired of seeing these rumors without any
data behind them. 

-matthew kaufman
 matthew () scruz net

ps. please let me know whether or not I can name you and/or your
 network should this get distributed in any way.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -