[34837] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Peering contract, needed or optional?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Leo Bicknell)
Tue Feb 20 15:59:28 2001
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 15:56:43 -0500
From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
To: Wolfgang Tremmel <w.tremmel@vianetworks.de>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20010220155643.A89397@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ussenterprise.ufp.org>,
Wolfgang Tremmel <w.tremmel@vianetworks.de>, nanog@merit.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <001b01c09b27$60891400$be04e7c2@tremmel.du.gtn.com>; from w.tremmel@vianetworks.de on Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 11:24:57AM +0100
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 11:24:57AM +0100, Wolfgang Tremmel wrote:
> I just had a discussion with our legal advisor whether it is necessary or
> not to sign a peering contract with every (little) peering partner.
>
> I know that a lot of the big ones require these contracts and I don't have
> a problem with that, my opinion just is that a contract with a peer who
> announces one /19 is not really necessary.
Today's Opnix is tomorrow's UUNet, and it's easier to get the
contract when they are small to use as a hammer when they are big.
Ok, I just tried three times, I can't say that sentence without
laughing, but it makes my point. :-)
--
Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org
Systems Engineer - Internetworking Engineer - CCIE 3440
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request@tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
