RE: Sprint peering policy

["Daniel Golding" <dgolding () sockeye com>]

William,

It would be quite surprising if an informational RFC changed anyone's
peering policy or opinions on peering. Peering is as much or more so, a
function of business and business relationships, rather than simply a
technical method of accomplishing interconnection. Networks peer when they
have a business reason to do so, regardless of their size. I suspect many
engineers become upset when a large network won't peer with them, and assume
that it is due to large-company cluelessness. While I am loath to suggest
that some of these behemoths have an idea as to what they are doing, most
can recognize a peering opportunity for what it is, and the effect it will
have on their business. If they were only so good at truthfully reporting
their accounting data...Oh well.

- Daniel Golding

> > when this situation has existed in other industries, gov't intervention
> > has always resulted.  even when the scope is international.  i've not
> > been able to puzzle out the reason why the world's gov'ts have not
> > stepped in with some basic interconnection requirements for IP carriers.
> Give example of other industry where such goverment intervention happened
> and has helped that industry? And what goverment exactly are we talking
> about - US Goverment? France Goverment? China Goverment? This is internet
> - its rules should not be based purely on decision of one single
> goverment.
>
> Perhaps an idea would be to write an advisery RFC on establishment of
> peering relationships by ISPs. While advisery does not mean everyone will
> follow, it'll allow groups within a company that are interested in more
> peering (network engineers..) to backup their words by an established
> internet standard.
>
> --
> William Leibzon
> Elan Communications Inc.