|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: UUNET peering policy
Sean Donelan wrote: > You'll find that meeting the peering "requirements" and actually obtaining > a peering agreement are two different things. > > Sprint had several sets of peering requirements, nevertheless it didn't > prevent them from not setting up a single new peering agreement with a > variety of networks which met those requirements for over three years if > you believe Sprint's product manager. Sean, Perhaps my comments were not "crystal" clear, because many of the comments in this thread have missed the core of my observations, including yours. The fact that Worldcom/MCI/UUNet has publicly stated it's peering policy is seminal. When Worldcom/UUNet attempted to gobble MCI up, a couple of companies including GTE Internetworking hitchhiked to Washington DC, and objected on a number of grounds... not important to this discussion per se, but related to competition, and monopolies, etc. During the course of the conflict the nature and existence of uneven and arbitrary peering policies hit the radar screens of the various legislative bodies. The exact details are confidential, but if John Curran was permitted, and so inclined, he could educate many here. Nonetheless, one of the things that came out of it was an understanding by the DC crew that peering could make or break big and small players. Just ask Level3 and QWEST what life has been like ;-) I also don't believe that it was a coincidence that Genuity/GTE was the first to make a public statement of it's peering policy. Now all well and good, but Genuity and Sprint and C&W and AT&T and IBM etc. are really not as significant in traffic delivered to end users as is UUNet. And if you don't peer with UUNet, all the other peering in the world still means that you probably have to pay for the delivery of a significant portion (say ~50%) of your traffic. Don't respond individually to say that *you* are different because you have an AOL centric product, and say UUNet is irrelevant to you. Perhaps it is, but most of the world needs UUNet in a major way. So when UUNet posts it's peering policy publicly, despite what you, SMD and Randy say, it will *not* be simple in any way for UUNet to refuse to peer if you meet the publicly stated requirements. They *cannot* do so arbitrarily any more. Their criteria are plain as day. And if they do procrastinate, or reject peering, on any grounds not related to lack of meeting the criteria, they have laid the groundwork for a legislative baseball hat that will beat them senseless. As a) a public company, and b) the beneficiary of a legislative ruling re various merger activities, if they "pull any of that crap" they'll invite probably successful litigation. And it is because of their dominant position that this is a remarkable event. If a company meets the criteria to peer (in the true sense, i.e. without filter, fee, or settlement) with UUNet, I would bet that they would be able to peer with every other significant network. I have no doubt that UUNet has peered with other 'interesting' networks over the last couple of years, quietly, under NDA. It's the public aspect here that is "interesting". I'd love to know if the reason UUNet took this step was in response to government pressure, or a decision based on the fact that ISPs have become so damn adept at negotiating prices below that of what "regular" companies pay (which some may remember was opposite to the way it was in the 'olden' days) that they have decided to get their revenue elsewhere. Or something else? -- Rodney Joffe CenterGate Research Group, LLC. http://www.centergate.com "Technology so advanced, even we don't understand it!"(SM)
|