Re: Sprint peering policy

["Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve () opaltelecom co uk>]

On Fri, 28 Jun 2002, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:

> At 05:28 PM 6/28/2002 +0000, Vijay Gill wrote:
>
>  >Dan, if you are a peer of sprint and I use the word peer as in:
>  >
>  >1 : one that is of equal standing with another : EQUAL; especially :
>  >one belonging to the same societal group especially based on age,
>  >grade, or status
>  >
>  >then I am sure things can happen.
>  >
>  >Keeping the above definition of peering in mind, and not the current
>  >accepted definition of what "peering" means, things suddenly become
>  >crystal clear.
>
> Not trying to start a "peering" debate, but I do believe there are benefits 
> to peering with networks which are not your "equal", in both directions.
>
> OTOH, some networks who peered with anyone and everyone did not 
> survive.  While some networks who peered with no one have also died.  (And 
> some who peer with no one just over-report EBITDA by more than the GNP of 
> many countries. :-)  So I am not sure there is any strong evidence that 
> peering or not is good for long term economic viability.

I doubt peering for a large "tier 1" is directly affecting their economic state,
they will see all networks via peers with their fellow "tier 1" networks and
peering further downstream isnt going to alter cost..

> I do believe there is operational evidence that a more open peering policy 
> can reduce latency to off-net locations, but I am sure there are other 
> reasons to close your peering policy.

I think this is the key point. Its common sense that peering with the
downstreams will improve user quality of service by both reducing latency and
taking unnecessary points of failure out of the network.

Steve