[38500] in North American Network Operators' Group
New peering criteria
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sean Donelan)
Wed Jun 6 13:14:53 2001
Date: 6 Jun 2001 10:14:19 -0700
Message-ID: <20010606171419.17374.cpmta@c004.sfo.cp.net>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: nanog@merit.edu
From: Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>
X-Sent-From: sean@donelan.com
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Is there any limit what a provider can write in a peering criteria?
Imagine:
AT&T, C&W and UUNET announce new peering criteria. They will only peer
with companies without the letter "P" in their name.
PSI, failing to meet the publicly announced peering criteria, must buy
transit or face the termination with extreme prejudice of traffic exchange
with other providers. The spokesperson for the Three said, "All PSI has
to do is change its name, its not our fault, we have no choice. Its in
the peering criteria."
This seems to be very much a telco mentality. We wrote the tariff, but
we have no choice but to kill you because its in the tariff. Yes, we could
change the tariff in less than 24-hours, but that's not in the tariff. So
you must die. Sorry, there is nothing we can do.
Peering criteria seem to be nothing more than a fictional fig leaf. Peering
is a straight business relationship. Which provider is hurt more by the
termination of peering.
If you think it will hurt the other provider more than you, you'll terminate
the agreement. If you think it will hurt you more, you'll fight to keep it
in place.
