[33527] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: UUNET peering policy
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steve Meuse)
Mon Jan 15 10:29:16 2001
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20010115101037.018258c0@127.0.0.1>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 10:21:26 -0500
To: Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>, nanog@merit.edu
From: Steve Meuse <smeuse@genuity.net>
In-Reply-To: <20010114233318.8494.cpmta@c004.sfo.cp.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
DISCLAIMER: Personal opinions
At 03:33 PM 01/14/2001 -0800, Sean Donelan wrote:
>It will be interesting to see what happens in 12 months when UUNET
>retroactively applies their policy to existing private interconnections.
As I read it:
From http://www2.uu.net/peering/
"and adjusts the minimum operating requirements to current traffic levels.."
>What if you are a web hosting company with data centers in a few large
>cities (chi, dal, la, nyc, sf) and don't meet UUNET's requirement to
>be located in 15 US states.
Then you have not made the same investment in infrastructure, and therefore
are not a *peer*.
>What if you are a major Canadian provider
>with POPs in every province from coast to coast, but only a few locations
>across the border in the USA. What if you are a major South American or
>African provider covering those entire continents, but with little
>presence in UUNET's strongholds of US, Europe and Asia.
The International problem is definitely a different issue. The existing
model will probably hold true until the US is no longer the "center" of the
network (traffic wise).
