[49282] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Sprint peering policy
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Richard A Steenbergen)
Thu Jun 27 16:17:41 2002
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 16:15:40 -0400
From: Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net>
To: Ralph Doncaster <ralph@istop.com>
Cc: Daniel Golding <dgolding@sockeye.com>,
"nanog@merit.edu" <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0206271452580.367-100000@cpu1693.adsl.bellglobal.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 02:57:59PM -0400, Ralph Doncaster wrote:
>
> I know Sprint won't peer with anyone small. I said in my inital post I
> don't stand a chance - but who knows, at the rate OC48 prices are dropping
> maybe next year I will meet the requirements. Attention K-Mart shoppers,
> WorldCom OC48's on sale in isle 5. ;-)
When OC48s are cheap, the peering requirements will become OC192. It has
nothing to do with the ability to support the traffic exchanged, but
everything to do with excluding you from peering with them.
A lot of networks are now running peering requirements so hard that almost
none of their existing peers would qualify (including some well known
tier 1's).
> > The second point is, whomever you spoke to has violated a non-disclosure
> > agreement, one that is normally taken seriously. I would tread carefully in
> > this area, as it may get whomever you spoke with in a significant amount of
> > trouble.
>
> I didn't post this until now since I was waiting for a couple opinions to
> verify that it was in fact genuine, and as well a public filing that
> anyone could get if they know where to dig at the FCC.
>
> http://ns.istop.com/~ralph/2000-04-13-sprint.pdf
Note the date, February 8, 2000. Over 2 years later is an eternity in
peering requirement land.
--
Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)
