|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Sprint peering policy
At 05:28 PM 6/28/2002 +0000, Vijay Gill wrote: >Dan, if you are a peer of sprint and I use the word peer as in: > >1 : one that is of equal standing with another : EQUAL; especially : >one belonging to the same societal group especially based on age, >grade, or status > >then I am sure things can happen. > >Keeping the above definition of peering in mind, and not the current >accepted definition of what "peering" means, things suddenly become >crystal clear. Not trying to start a "peering" debate, but I do believe there are benefits to peering with networks which are not your "equal", in both directions. OTOH, some networks who peered with anyone and everyone did not survive. While some networks who peered with no one have also died. (And some who peer with no one just over-report EBITDA by more than the GNP of many countries. :-) So I am not sure there is any strong evidence that peering or not is good for long term economic viability. I do believe there is operational evidence that a more open peering policy can reduce latency to off-net locations, but I am sure there are other reasons to close your peering policy. Fortunately, there are few regulations, so most networks may peer with whomever they please - equal or otherwise. >vijay "time to put back the peer in peering" gill And to think you used to work for Above.Net.... -- TTFN, patrick
|