[33517] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: UUNET peering policy
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (john heasley)
Sun Jan 14 14:04:11 2001
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 11:00:08 -0800
From: john heasley <heas@shrubbery.net>
To: Paul Vixie <vixie@mfnx.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20010114110008.X7202@shrubbery.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <g3itnio59r.fsf@redpaul.mfnx.net>; from vixie@mfnx.net on Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 01:24:32AM -0800
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 01:24:32AM -0800, Paul Vixie:
>
> sean@donelan.com (Sean Donelan) writes:
>
> ...another stunningly well researched, accurate and articulate article,
> including the following:
>
> > ... The imbalance issue has come up a few more times with other
> > providers such as PSI, Abovenet and others.
>
> To the best of my knowledge, AboveNet has never insisted on any particular
> traffic balance with any of our peers. Send to us 10:1, 1:10, 1:1, whatever.
> Any traffic coming or going over a peering connection is to or from one of
> AboveNet's customers, which means we're paid (by that customer) to deliver it.
> (Any other policy amounts to wanting to be paid twice for the same packet.)
yes! hopefully those who insist upon particular ratios groked that.
> Of course I can't commend on PSI or any of the other companies Sean mentioned.
> --
> Paul Vixie <Paul.Vixie@MMFN.COM>
> CTO and SVP, MFN (NASDAQ: MFNX)
>
> AboveNet, PAIX, and MIBH are subsidiaries of Metromedia Fiber Network, Inc.
