North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: Sprint peering policy
- From: Vijay Gill
- Date: Fri Jun 28 22:35:44 2002
- Original-sender: vgill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Mike Leber <email@example.com> writes:
> Sprint's peers aren't equal to Sprint or each other when considered by
> revenue, profitability, number of customers, or geographical coverage.
A good proxy for the above is to ask the question:
Do X and Y feel they derive equal value (for some value of equal) by
interconnecting with each other?
If they think they do, then an interconnection is set up between X
and Y. However, if one party feels that they do NOT derive equal
value by interconnecting with the other, than that party usually
X states that they would only feel equal value is derived by both
parties if traffic between X and the other party is n mb/s with a
ratio of p:q. Y disagrees. They do not interconnect. This causes
Usually the pain for one party is greater than the pain for the
other, unless they are really peers of each other, in which case
settlement free interconnections happen. However, if there isn't
equal amounts of pain being felt on both sides, then normally the
party with the more hurt tries to redress the issue.
Usually this imbalance in perceived value is redressed by one of the
parties offering to make up the difference by some form of a transfer
> This is ridiculous elitism.
> to make sense of their peering policy, just accept the fact that each
> company has policies that they believe to be in their best interests and
> omit the pretense of justifying this by the movement of heavenly bodies in
> the spheres.
I think we are in agreement here.