nanog mailing list archives
Re: Level 3 Peering Guidelines
From: Adam Rothschild <asr () latency net>
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2011 17:55:27 -0400
What are thoughts on public disclosure limited to capacity constraints? There is ample business reason for making the terms of specific interconnects private. On the other hand, knowing definitively that {mon,du}opoly broadband provider A is running its connections to transit provider B hot could be in the public interest, and allow operators to make informed routing decisions. Bringing these metrics into the public light might also encourage operators to upgrade more responsibly, though this could be wishful thinking on my part. :-) (This is entirely food for thought, I've not yet formed any opinions.) -a
Current thread:
- Re: Level 3 Peering Guidelines, (continued)
- Re: Level 3 Peering Guidelines Joly MacFie (Aug 26)
- Re: Level 3 Peering Guidelines Leo Bicknell (Aug 26)
- Re: Level 3 Peering Guidelines Patrick W . Gilmore (Aug 26)
- Re: Level 3 Peering Guidelines Valdis . Kletnieks (Aug 26)
- Re: Level 3 Peering Guidelines Patrick W. Gilmore (Aug 27)
- Re: Level 3 Peering Guidelines Valdis . Kletnieks (Aug 27)
- Re: Level 3 Peering Guidelines Seth Mattinen (Aug 27)
- Re: Level 3 Peering Guidelines Patrick W. Gilmore (Aug 27)
- Re: Level 3 Peering Guidelines Leo Bicknell (Aug 28)
- Re: Level 3 Peering Guidelines Patrick W. Gilmore (Aug 28)
- Re: Level 3 Peering Guidelines Adam Rothschild (Aug 27)