> Besides, most of the major providers previously based the bulk of
> their peering 'requirements' on how many DS3s you had. Now most
> 'major' providers seem to have gone cold turkey. MCI, Sprint, and
> UUNET told me they won't peer with *anyone* new.And from my "media learnt" view of US things, I can't wait for the first
anti-trust suiteBut seriously, lets face it, DS3's are "cheap" and these people
want more customes no freeloaders. Like us, who are paying $5M+ a
year for a trans-atlantic DS3 and Sprint are very insistant that
we build a US network based on DS3s to peer with them, even with
the obvious fact that we have no US customers and have already paid
for a connection which in reality should be matched by the large
US carriers, rather than taking the piss once you have this
investment. I only mention Sprint, since the others you mention
are a tad more sensible, but still slow, while Sprint are in a
glacier.
I don't quite remember how we went from black holes to peering policies,
but I certainly will put my two bits in ;0
MCI's policy seems very clear to myself. They require DS3 backbone, 3
DS3 IXPs and 24X7 noc. If you meet the requirement, you sign a document
and then peering is initiated. Took a matter of 2-3 weeks for myself.
Sprint's policy USED to be that, then they seemed to have backed off from
all new peerings until "the end of summer". August 20th to be exact. But
then nothing has been released. At least they are moving towards a policy,
according to Marti Kiser at Sprint. Sprint has always been reluctant to
peer, so this should have never been a shock to anyone.
UUNet's policy is the one I have a problem with--there is no policy it
seems. UUNET went from peering with everyone, regionals, etc. when Andrew
Partan was there, to now not peering with anyone. They act interested, but
then will come back to you with a. Private Peerings via DS3s or b. No peering
because your network is not equivalent in size to the "multiple DS3s" they have
coming from each hub. I still have not seen any written policies from
UUNET.
My feeling is the market will shift into forcing non-peering NSPs into peering
relatively soon. How can companies like Sprint and UUNET not afford to peer
with networks such as ourselves, @home, compuserve, and many others that they
have refused, yet honor peerings with networks that have 1 T1 to an IXP.
More and more people will simply shove their traffic through the already
bogged down CIX router. For primarily West Coast isps, such as ourselves,
this is not a problem. CIX is a much cheaper cost for shortest-path-out
routing than backhauling the return traffic from Mae-East.
Robert Bowman
Exodus Communications Inc.