|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical [no subject]
Of course, FlyBit Networks has no bilateral agreement with Sprint. They are connected to the XP and Sprint is too. FlyBit sees the XP as a sort of public resource like the realworld highways and feels that they should be able to choose their route to deliver packets. In the realworld if Sprint had a complex with two Sprint-owned accesspoints they would install a guard and a gate to prevent FlyBite Couriers from using that access. In the network situation, is there any good reason why Sprint should be absolved from the responsibility of filtering the traffic coming in from the exchange? IMHO, the only good such reason would be that the exchange is doing the filtering itself, whether by contractual agreement or by some technical means. I know some XP operators would like to stay right out of the relationships between XP-connected companies but I don't think this is realistic in the long run. In particular, it makes a lot of sense to prohibit companies from connected to the XP's switching fabric unless they have already negotiated peering arrangements with all other companies currently connected. This would tend to keep the number of connected peers fairly small which is a good thing IMHO. For most ISP's it makes more sense to be in some sort of connectivity farm hanging off the XP using zero-mile DS3's or similar. Michael Dillon - ISP & Internet Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-604-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: [email protected] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|