North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: UUNET peering policy
Theres been a bit of an update, see a link on www.slashdot.org. Bri On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Rodney Joffe wrote: > > > > [email protected] wrote: > > > > Rodney Joffe is being optimistic; the fact is that a network that > > exceeds the minimum requirements UUNET has published yet which has > > zero customers, is simply not going to get a no-settlement peering > > agreement with UUNET. "Zero" here is a relative term. > > > > Sean. > > > > | >If I understand the document correctly, anyone who meets their clear > > | >requirements will be able to exchange traffic with them at no charge. > > [...] > > | >Rodney Joffe > > | >CenterGate Research Group, LLC. > > I believe that if you examine the UUNet requirements, it states: > > First: > 1.2 > Traffic Exchange Ratio. The ratio of the > aggregate > amount of traffic exchanged between the > Requester and the > WorldCom Internet Network with which it > seeks to > interconnect shall be roughly balanced and > shall not exceed > 1.5:1. > and second: > 1.4 > Traffic Volume. The aggregate amount of > traffic > exchanged in each direction over all > interconnection links > between the Requester and the WorldCom > Internet > Network with which it desires to > interconnect shall equal or > exceed 150 Mbps of traffic for > WorldCom-US, 30 Mbps > of traffic for WorldCom-Europe, and 5 Mbps > of traffic for > WorldCom-ASPAC > > While it is theoretically possible that this could be achieved with no > customers (e.g. CNN, or Yahoo), I think it is highly unlikely that both > parts of the equation would hold up. What would a publisher possibly be > a receiver of that would equate to 100mbs in the US? And if they did, > why would they have local access points in 15 states? > > Or am I missing something Sean? > > -- > Rodney Joffe > CenterGate Research Group, LLC. > http://www.centergate.com > "Technology so advanced, even we don't understand it!"(SM) >
|