[33521] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: UUNET peering policy
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Vixie)
Mon Jan 15 02:33:53 2001
To: nanog@merit.edu
From: Paul Vixie <vixie@mfnx.net>
Date: 14 Jan 2001 23:31:25 -0800
In-Reply-To: sean@donelan.com's message of "14 Jan 2001 15:35:33 -0800"
Message-ID: <g3n1ctff02.fsf@redpaul.mfnx.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
sean@donelan.com (Sean Donelan) writes:
> If you look at Abovenet's traffic graphs, you'll notice Abovenet has a wide
> variety of traffic balances with different providers. Some in Abovenet's
> favor (such as 3:1 with Sprint, 5:1 with Teleglobe) and some in the other
> provider's favor (such as 1:3 with Exodus). ...
"Favor"? What, precisely, connotes "favor" in this regard? Sending more, or
receiving more? And: why?
> ... I think interconnection agreements should be based on the point of
> interconnection. When you delve too much in how the internals of other
> providers' networks work, I think you are always going to run into
> problems. I think it is best to view other provider's networks as a
> black box.
I don't agree. Peering is a business relationship transcending locations.
The best peering agreements I know of (e.g., mine) specify growth terms so
that traffic won't eventually encounter congestion while trying to get from
one to the other or back again. Some forms of growth involve additional
peering locations, and some do not. A peering agreement which was based on
the point of interconnection would be far less useful in avoiding congestion.
--
Paul Vixie <Paul.Vixie@MMFN.COM>
CTO and SVP, MFN (NASDAQ: MFNX)
AboveNet, PAIX, and MIBH are subsidiaries of Metromedia Fiber Network, Inc.
