[145633] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: L3 announces new peering policy
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Thu Oct 13 14:22:56 2011
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: <7BCDDF17-74EC-4ECD-AC32-0E2D5FF7A0DC@eyeconomics.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:22:01 -0400
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Oct 13, 2011, at 2:19 PM, Tom Vest wrote:
> Note the distinction in the new peering relationship requirement -- =
only direct adjacencies with other transit-providing ASes count.=20
>=20
> ...or did that change happen some time ago and I'm just noticing it =
now (?)
It is new.
I'm unclear how that has anything to do with what they need as a =
business other than to carve out potential customers from the pool.
Actually, we are all very clear....
--=20
TTFN,
patrick
> On Oct 13, 2011, at 2:13 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
>=20
>> --- asr@latency.net wrote:
>> From: Adam Rothschild <asr@latency.net>
>>=20
>> 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?
>>=20
>> 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:
>>=20
>> http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=3D7021703819
>> http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=3D7021703818
>>=20
>> 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...
>> ----------------------------------------------------
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> 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.=20
>>=20
>> scott
>>=20
>=20
