[132696] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Ratios & peering [was: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Curran)
Tue Nov 30 07:46:09 2010
X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see
http://www.dyndns.com/services/mailhop/outbound_abuse.html for
abuse reporting information)
From: John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>
In-Reply-To: <7BC3C7E5-6E99-4698-8D54-2A74E8989899@ianai.net>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 07:46:05 -0500
To: Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Nov 29, 2010, at 11:47 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> BTW: The attempt failed. Dave @ Above got Exodus & Global Center to =
agree to pull a Cogent if GTEi pulled a Level 3. GTEi blinked, and the =
rest is history.
Patrick -=20
Your summary is incorrect. To be perfectly clear on the history: In=20
summer of 1997, GTEi did indeed have a dispute with Exodus regarding=20
traffic levels on peering interconnects, and indicated that it would=20
cease peering. On 16 Sep 1998, the dispute was resolved when Exodus=20
signed an agreement with GTEi which was covered by non-disclosure at
Exodus's request[1][2].
> Peering is a business relationship. If your company can make more or =
spend less by peering with another company, you should do it. If you do =
not consummate that relationship, you are hurting your business. This =
should be the only reason to peer or not peer.
Correct, and indeed that was basic principle in operation during the=20
GTEi/Exodus peering dispute.
FYI,
/John
CTO Emeritus=20
BBN/GTEi
[1] =
<http://www.internetnews.com/xSP/article.php/44421/Exodus-GTE-Increase-Tra=
ffic-Exchanges.htm>
[2] <http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/1998-09/msg00373.html>
