Re: L3 announces new peering policy

[Tom Vest <tvest () eyeconomics com>]

Note the distinction in the new peering relationship requirement -- only direct adjacencies with other 
transit-providing ASes count. 

...or did that change happen some time ago and I'm just noticing it now (?)

TV

On Oct 13, 2011, at 2:13 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:

> --- asr () latency net wrote:
> From: Adam Rothschild <asr () latency net>
>
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 7:39 PM, Scott Weeks <surfer () mauigateway com> wrote:
> > Isn't it just more of the same, or am I brainnumb today?
>
> What's changed is the introduction of "bit miles" as a means of
> calculating equality, where traffic ratios might previously have been
> used.  Explained further, as pointed out on-list earlier:
>
> http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021703819
> http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021703818
>
> What will be interesting is whether new peering adjacencies crop up as
> a result of the new policy (I can think of several "smaller" global
> networks which now qualify, as it's written), or if this is just
> posturing on Level 3's part.  The next few months will be interesting
> for sure...
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> I do recall the bit-miles conversations, but didn't tie that into this.  doh!  Thanks for the links.  That kind of 
> detail is what I should've been looking for and it explains everything. 
>
> scott

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: