Re: Simple Peering Agreement

[Justin Wilson <lists () mtin net>]

        I need paperwork to justify several things the bean counters want to see
on paper.  It's hard to present why you need 5 additional 10Gig ports when
you have nothing on paper of why those ports are being used.

        Justin


-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Woodcock <woody () pch net>
Date: Friday, June 15, 2012 1:57 PM
To: "NANOG (nanog () nanog org)" <nanog () nanog org>
Subject: Re: Simple Peering Agreement

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
>
> On Jun 15, 2012, at 10:36 AM, Isabel Dias wrote:
> > are you any good in Maths?
> >
> > http://www.stanford.edu/~milgrom/publishedarticles/Advances%20in%20Routin
> > g%20Technologies%20and%20Internet%20Peering%20Agr.%202001.pdf
>
> If you're good in maths, you'll realize that the simple peering agreement
> is the one that covers 99.5% of interconnections, and is well enough
> understood that it need not be committed to paper.  :-)
>
> http://www.pch.net/resources/papers/peering-survey/PCH-Peering-Survey-2011
> .pdf
>
>                                -Bill
>
>
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin)
> Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
>
> iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJP23eFAAoJEG+kcEsoi3+HSJ8P+wTeik0+xr1o5R8hTVsCKsrI
> +xwxAOzE5yjt8MXqAKqOWCFqWBWy1xaXcetUiKW/0SKjK+5Uz2OVUsPHnDc6xX/k
> clhM5b2rsB7T5NkRzBO26kfCMXEAL1v9peafxzc3XWjXuOtbf6UnBwH6+OIgiLrM
> +1Sbj/fVI/CwFYhpRRPW77itttfS6srka5uz06vB0XN69VQ7mn/bESOChaypf31K
> Vn3MZhn6byCVDcyrEOH5QtK5DAW1EQrZLbZA9e6VwrrartSjiwP9N9QuVGZ0fXhr
> uKnlQwxJXX1z/hC1REQcYLN4yuRcEFvKJj1t/3yuOoA00TvWZyYiKtzdTnUNmK5c
> BFPImwyod/X0qZHTfzik+dIHbO5vlS31jL/I4xmKn5PYKjNXSODx4viN+C39Je+r
> IR07ppVUv8du4cwDzxDVldFuT8HGv3X3fS5NI1iJUiJFqD5fR/6y1E4EOhGZkVa3
> DI1WwEcSS/mJiW0BgHhuWmHAK++mXANP8qKWZcVNmP7BDwJ8hUKg4tltepVkyvUp
> VyPc4vOns/06TvEM3F8i2nCuCxDxhftsvHnGepYijvSPko25NDCOE5g2VBlITCf2
> neGZ8xttsnTiAqGG5oHYsMWyMg1kjodGHMR2oBzPeNUTUMyOJFM2Ro8TfDvX9b1/
> 43LgwdG9N3ExiUpAmKcO
> =lm/u
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----