[49447] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Sprint peering policy
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Miquel van Smoorenburg)
Mon Jul 1 15:51:34 2002
To: nanog@merit.edu
From: "Miquel van Smoorenburg" <miquels@cistron.nl>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 19:42:18 +0000 (UTC)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@cistron.nl
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
In article <cistron.!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAA/zNkI7d3EEmn3+v5DgN/l8KAAAAQAAAADJAemGHjDECnen8+YjBFaQEAAAAA@isprime.com>,
Phil Rosenthal <pr@isprime.com> wrote:
>Apples and oranges. Wcom isn't talking about dropping AT&T as a peer,
>they just don't want to peer with "Joe Six Pack ISP". Wcom would likely
>not peer with most ISPs, and I wouldn't expect them to. They gain
>absolutely nothing from it, and the small ISPs gain plenty. Wcom's
>costs only increase since they need "more ports".
Wcom could peer with "Joe Six Pack ISP" at an exchange if
- connection cost is very low (shared ethernet)
- they don't peer with Joe's upstream at the same location
- they only announce regional routes to Joe
- they use hot potato routing everywhere
in that case, the peering would just be local/regional, probably
all that Joe is after anyway
Mike.
