[44790] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Peering Agreements
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Leo Bicknell)
Thu Dec 13 15:44:56 2001
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 15:44:24 -0500
From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
To: Robert Tryce <rtryce@deadnet.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20011213154424.A77796@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Robert Tryce <rtryce@deadnet.net>, nanog@merit.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSO.4.33.0112131500130.3231-100000@madcat.deadnet.net>; from rtryce@deadnet.net on Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 03:00:27PM -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 03:00:27PM -0500, Robert Tryce wrote:
> I have a question on public peering agreements. I have seen some providers
> using them while others are not. What is the general opinion on peering
> agreements? Are most peering agreements used mainly for private peering?
> Also, what are the pros and cons and what kind of protection should I
> expect from such an agreement?
Since, as far as I know, there is no direct legal precedent I would
suggest it would be wise to at least have a "no warranty expressed
or implied, use at your own risk, may be terminated at any time
without notice" contract. Some companies may want to get fancier.
Without any contract you're ripe pickings for a long court case only
to see a judge "make new law", IMHO.
--
Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request@tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
