nanog mailing list archives
Re: UUNET peering policy
From: Steve Meuse <smeuse () genuity net>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 10:21:26 -0500
DISCLAIMER: Personal opinions At 03:33 PM 01/14/2001 -0800, Sean Donelan wrote:
It will be interesting to see what happens in 12 months when UUNET retroactively applies their policy to existing private interconnections.
As I read it: From http://www2.uu.net/peering/ "and adjusts the minimum operating requirements to current traffic levels.."
What if you are a web hosting company with data centers in a few large cities (chi, dal, la, nyc, sf) and don't meet UUNET's requirement to be located in 15 US states.
Then you have not made the same investment in infrastructure, and therefore are not a *peer*.
What if you are a major Canadian provider with POPs in every province from coast to coast, but only a few locations across the border in the USA. What if you are a major South American or African provider covering those entire continents, but with little presence in UUNET's strongholds of US, Europe and Asia.
The International problem is definitely a different issue. The existing model will probably hold true until the US is no longer the "center" of the network (traffic wise).
Current thread:
- Re: UUNET peering policy, (continued)
- 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 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)