North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: UUNET peering policy
Folks here may find the below interesting. also available here.. http://www.interesting-people.org/200101/0015.html JeffH ----- Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 16:01:33 -0500 To: [email protected] From: Dave Farber <[email protected]> Subject: IP: A watershed event has occurred with no fanfare... Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: [email protected] Precedence: list Reply-To: [email protected] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Content-Length: 2706 >Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 13:41:14 -0700 >From: Rodney Joffe <[email protected]> >To: Dave Farber <[email protected]> >Subject: A watershed event has occurred with no fanfare... > >Hello Dave, > >As you probably know from your time at the FCC, as well as your earlier >'net history, probably the most controversial and secretive subject >relating the the true backbone, and infrastructure of the Internet, has >been that of peering and peering relationships. For clarification, >peering in the Internet sense is the exchange of traffic between two >networks without filtering, limitation, or fee. > >As the founder of the original Genuity, in 1993-4 I was the last of the >networks to be party to the multi-lateral peering agreement that made >the commercial Internet work. From that moment on, it became virtually >impossible for anyone else to connect and exchange traffic with the rest >of the Internet without paying a transit or traffic fee to someone else. >The whole subject became mired in obfuscation and secrecy, and over the >next 7 years, the company that everyone needed to peer with but no new >company could was UUNet (now Worldcom/MCI/UUNet). Even with the other >major networks at the time (Sprint, MCI, BBN, AT&T, IBM etc.) this was >difficult, because the secret sauce seemed to be finding out what a >given network's peering requirement was, and then meeting those >requirements. And no major network ever published it's requirement. > >The requirement was generally political, but articulated in some vague >technical specification (e.g. to be present at 5 public exchange points, >with a point-to-point clear channel T3 between all points, and at least >one redundant path between any two exchange points, etc.). > >So the rest of the Internet industry basically gave up on ever being >able to join the chosen few who peered at the center of the Internet >without paying any form of settlement fees. > >Then, apparently in the last few days, a clear statement on peering >policy and requirements has appeared on the UUNet website - see >http://www.uu.net/peering/ This is a remarkable document in that for the >very first time ever, in a public form, it sets standards for >settlement-free (i.e. no charge) peering with UUnet, the world's largest >Internet network. > >If I understand the document correctly, anyone who meets their clear >requirements will be able to exchange traffic with them at no charge. > >This will undoubtedly change the landscape of the Internet. > >Regards, >-- >Rodney Joffe >CenterGate Research Group, LLC. >http://www.centergate.com >"Technology so advanced, even we don't understand it!"(SM) For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/ ------- End of Forwarded Message
|