North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: NANOG 9 Date Change (fwd)

  • From: Avi Freedman
  • Date: Tue Nov 26 12:38:12 1996

> > o Since no NAP operator is going to enforce an MLPA, how can peering between
> >   multiple willing parties still be made to happen with less people time
> >   involved in the setup?
> Peering is a business relationship; such relationships take time
> to establish.  I don't see any way to get the people time out of
> it.
> 	[email protected] (Andrew Partan)

There are (now) numerous smaller providers who have a 'peer-with-me' attitude.
And they all, in particular, want to peer with each other.  At least, that's
what I heard at the last NANOG.

As such, it would save them time to be able to peer with one box and not 
have to change anything on their end to get peering with other willing parties.

I don't think much of the idea of groups getting together to buy transit to
other exchange points or from one provider for the group; that way seems
way too treacherous to me.

I'm not saying that Net Access would use this; at least, not without heavy 
AS-path filtering.  But I think that many others would, especially those 
subsets that are at MAE-East or MAE-West to pick up regional connectivity in 
addition to whatever national connectivity they can.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -