North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Sprint peering policy

  • From: Miquel van Smoorenburg
  • Date: Mon Jul 01 15:51:24 2002
  • Distribution: cistron
  • Newsgroups: lists.nanog
In article <cistron.!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAA/zNkI7d3EEmn3+v5DgN/[email protected]>,
Phil Rosenthal <[email protected]> wrote:
>Apples and oranges.  Wcom isn't talking about dropping AT&T as a peer,
>they just don't want to peer with "Joe Six Pack ISP".  Wcom would likely
>not peer with most ISPs, and I wouldn't expect them to.  They gain
>absolutely nothing from it, and the small ISPs gain plenty.  Wcom's
>costs only increase since they need "more ports".

Wcom could peer with "Joe Six Pack ISP" at an exchange if

- connection cost is very low (shared ethernet)
- they don't peer with Joe's upstream at the same location
- they only announce regional routes to Joe
- they use hot potato routing everywhere

in that case, the peering would just be local/regional, probably
all that Joe is after anyway

Mike.