North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: Sprint peering policy
- From: Patrick W. Gilmore
- Date: Fri Jun 28 19:51:39 2002
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
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....