Inter-provider relations

By major providers, I mean ANS, Agis (questioning this one now), UUNET, MCI,
Sprint, BBN, etc. Not the 60+ on mae-east. All the above mentioned have
policies, or lack of policies but at least claim to have them.

While I agree in theory with the MLPA concept, the only "headache" it truly
alleviates is that of getting any contract signed. It doesn't mystically
configure the direct peering or the peering through the routing arbiter.
While it may be a good step for the regionals, we backed away from it on the
PB-NAP (after pushing and pushing for it) because it left us feeling a bit
out of control...

A centralized database, wherein all contacts from an ISP/NSP are kept (new
peering contacts, admin, techie, etc) along with current peering policy seems
like something that would have alleviated hundreds of hours for me..
Maybe the tooth fairy will deliver it someday..

Rob

While I agree in theory with the MLPA concept, the only "headache" it truly
alleviates is that of getting any contract signed. It doesn't mystically
configure the direct peering or the peering through the routing arbiter.

  -snip-

A centralized database, wherein all contacts from an ISP/NSP are kept (new
peering contacts, admin, techie, etc) along with current peering policy seems
like something that would have alleviated hundreds of hours for me..
Maybe the tooth fairy will deliver it someday..

My MUP (multilateral universal peering) concept is a bit different from
the MLPA. I am including a software change that *does* establish peering
thru the route arbiters between all signatories as well as the
contact/informational database you seek.

Best Regards,
Robert Laughlin