[37231] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Peter van Dijk)
Mon May 7 19:19:53 2001
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 23:55:29 +0200
From: Peter van Dijk <peter@dataloss.nl>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20010507235529.B76637@dataloss.nl>
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@merit.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20010507184513.A73748@dataloss.nl>; from peter@dataloss.nl on Mon, May 07, 2001 at 06:45:13PM +0200
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 06:45:13PM +0200, Peter van Dijk wrote:
[snip]
>
> Unet is, for example, one of the few (if not the only) ISP in The
> Netherlands that charges for *peering* (no, not transit, just peering).
I stand corrected on this bit. UUnet just has quite strong peering
requirements. Anybody wanting to exchange traffic with UUnet while
being unable to comply must become a customer, therefore.
> More and more clued people I know are avoiding UUnet because they
> don't peer with the small but quickly growing ISPs. Most UUnet
> customers are getting worse and worse connectivity as other ISPs stop
> peering with UUnet, because UUnet is becoming less and less important.
> A nice downward spiral.
I do still think UUnet is in a downward spiral, just like C&W. Strong
peering policies are not good for the Internet.
Greetz, Peter.
