[4839] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Peering versus Transit
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matthew Kaufman)
Mon Sep 30 04:05:45 1996
From: matthew@scruz.net (Matthew Kaufman)
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 01:02:05 -0700
In-Reply-To: Bill Woodcock <woody@zocalo.net>
"Re: Peering versus Transit" (Sep 30, 0:40)
To: Bill Woodcock <woody@zocalo.net>, avg@quake.net, barney@databus.com,
nanog@merit.edu
Cc: freedman@netaxs.com
From: Bill Woodcock <woody@zocalo.net>
Date: Sep 30, 0:40
Subject: Re: Peering versus Transit
>
...
> Okay, it's _widely rumored_ that it may be difficult to establish new
> peering sessions with some large ISPs, at the moment. :-)
...
>
From: Avi Freedman <freedman@netaxs.com>
Subject: Re: Peering versus Transit
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 18:20:21 -0400 (EDT)
>
...
> Even those who have steeled themselves to spend the $$$ to build the
> infrastructure needed may find that Sprint still won't (hasn't) peer(ed)
> with them. At least that's the claim.
Okay. That's two people with the rumor. But that rumor's been around
for a long while.
If you are a provider who has DS3 connectivity into 3 (widely-separated)
high-level exchange points (eg., MAE-E, MAE-W, PB-NAP, AADS-NAP, or
Sprint NAP) *and* you have been unable to get peering with a "major" NSP
(eg., Sprint, MCI, UUNet, PSI, Netcom, AGIS) please mail me. I'm making
a list. In your mail, tell me which exchange points you were at when the
request was made and the outcome (denied, ignored, forwarded to lawyer hell).
I will accept stories from entities that don't quite meet those requirements,
if they are convincing (eg., "We're at MAE-W and MAE-E and LINX and we're
in Germany and we think this oughta be enough")
This list isn't going to be used to go sue people. It is because I (and
several others, I'm sure) are tired of seeing these rumors without any
data behind them.
-matthew kaufman
matthew@scruz.net
ps. please let me know whether or not I can name you and/or your
network should this get distributed in any way.
