nanog mailing list archives
Re: UUNET peering policy
From: Paul Vixie <vixie () mfnx net>
Date: 14 Jan 2001 01:24:32 -0800
sean () donelan com (Sean Donelan) writes: ...another stunningly well researched, accurate and articulate article, including the following:
... The imbalance issue has come up a few more times with other providers such as PSI, Abovenet and others.
To the best of my knowledge, AboveNet has never insisted on any particular traffic balance with any of our peers. Send to us 10:1, 1:10, 1:1, whatever. Any traffic coming or going over a peering connection is to or from one of AboveNet's customers, which means we're paid (by that customer) to deliver it. (Any other policy amounts to wanting to be paid twice for the same packet.) Of course I can't commend on PSI or any of the other companies Sean mentioned. -- Paul Vixie <Paul.Vixie () MMFN COM> CTO and SVP, MFN (NASDAQ: MFNX) AboveNet, PAIX, and MIBH are subsidiaries of Metromedia Fiber Network, Inc.
Current thread:
- Re: UUNET peering policy, (continued)
- Re: UUNET peering policy Rodney Joffe (Feb 24)
- Re: UUNET peering policy Jeff . Hodges (Feb 24)
- Re: UUNET peering policy smd (Feb 24)
- Re: UUNET peering policy smd (Feb 24)
- Re: UUNET peering policy Rodney Joffe (Feb 24)
- Re: UUNET peering policy Brian W. (Feb 24)
- Re: UUNET peering policy Adam Rothschild (Feb 24)
- Re: UUNET peering policy John Fraizer (Feb 24)
- Re: UUNET peering policy Rodney Joffe (Feb 24)
- Re: UUNET peering policy Rodney Joffe (Feb 24)
- Re: UUNET peering policy Paul Vixie (Feb 24)
- Re: UUNET peering policy john heasley (Feb 24)
- Re: UUNET peering policy dave o'leary (Feb 24)
- Re: UUNET peering policy Paul Vixie (Feb 24)
- Re: UUNET peering policy Steve Meuse (Feb 24)
- Re: UUNET peering policy Paul Vixie (Feb 24)