[9297] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: UUNET Press Release on Peering
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Craig Nordin)
Tue May 13 15:24:25 1997
From: Craig Nordin <cnordin@just.net>
To: jsaker@intellitek.com (James Saker)
Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 15:04:43 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: web@typo.org, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <01BC5FA1.FBA095F0@BERN> from "James Saker" at May 13, 97 01:31:36 pm
UUNet won't be able to "stare down" just a simple and small farm.com,
but rather it will be forced to play chicken with hundreds of farm.coms.
While farm.com's customers will complain, so too will an even greater
number of UUNet's customers. UUNet's need for a solid reputation may
be greater than farm.com's.
Wayne Bouchard (web@primenet.com) writes:
>Ultimately, I think farm.com would have to
>give in to keep customers from moving services to a "better connected"
>provider.
Earlier, Avi seperated the meaning of peering with and without transit.
I found it suprising that the press release only mentioned peering and
did not mention transit (though it did seem to talk about transport).
Yes, so now I'm more confused. Can anyone point me to a document that
might tutor me?
Are the statements below roughly accurate in terms of what a UUNet
might do?
Peering with transit: Yes, I'll connect with you, and honor your
(A) BGP announcements. And if you can't establish
a route to your destination without me, I'll
give you a route through my net.
Peering w/o transit: Yes, I'll connect with you, and honor your
(B) BGP announcements. But if you can't get to
non UUNet-customer destinations on your own,
it just ain't your day.
No Peering : Nope, I don't care if you want to establish a
route to my customer. I'm not going to waste
my resources exchanging routes with you and
so your customers are effectively blocked from
my customers -- unless an intermediary is going
to provide transit.
