Interconnecting at MAE-West

Carl,

Although MFS is a great source of answers for 1, 2 and 3. They are not a good
source for 4 & 5. Since the goal of MFS at the Mae's (and rightfully so) is
to make money, they will convince you that it will be a good choice. However,
if you are a regional ISP, you can't get peering with most of the big NSPs
without having a national network, and then even that may not be enough.
Sprint's public policy that 3 DS3s, 24X7 NOC and DS3 backbone suffices for
peering, but they have stopped all new peering until the end of summer, leaving
Exodus, Compuserve and a few other large networks transitting through CIX and
upstream providers. I believe that MCI Internet, ANS, UUNet and a few others
have this policy, but will peer if you meet the minimum requirements. Since
those networks together are probably 60% or greater of the routes on the
Internet, how much of a use will this connection really be.

Of course shortest-path out makes great theoretical policy. Why would you,
as a local ISP, want your customer's traffic to be backhauled all the way
to D.C. and back, just to get to someone down the street. What you'll have
to do is weigh the high costs with the small benefit you will derive from
joining Mae-West. http://www.mfs.net/MAE has all the current connections on
the maes. I'd suggest reading it through and contacting a few of the ISPs
and NSPs, gathering their policies and studying the benefits before making
a very serious jump.

Or at least look into spending a bunch of additional money buying transit
services from AGIS or CRL. They both are in the business of servicing ISPs
at the IXP level. Both with their own advantages and disadvantages.

Robert Bowman
Exodus Communications Inc.

Robert bowman wrote: Or at least look into spending a bunch of additional
money buying transit
services from AGIS or CRL. They both are in the business of servicing
ISPs at the IXP level.

Why would you buy transit from either AGIS or CRL if you could also buy it
from MCI, ANS, Sprint or UUNET? Are you saying that if one of these big
players has a moretorium on peering, it also does not do transit?

Well, you may not want to get it form MCI, ANS, or UUNET because they
would peer with you, but will not peer with customers. This is where we
are at right now, we are building a full clear channel DS3 network, and
have a T1 right now into MCI for people we don't peer with. MCI is now
ready to peer, but will not until we ditch the T1 we have. We don't want
to go with UUNET or ANS because that would kill peering with them. So our
only choice is a smaller NSP that has Sprint peering but not a lot of net
traffic so it would not kill us not to peer, or Sprint.

P.S. I am looking for a copy of Sprints peering contract, if you have it
and want to share that would be great. So far I have had problems getting
it form Sprint.

Nathan Stratton CEO, NetRail, Inc. Tracking the future today!

One more thing, that reason we and a lot for others don't go with the last
logical choice (why not they will not peer until end of summer) is that
they will only sign a 1 year contract. They will also not peer with
customers, so getting a connection into Sprint to get Sprint routes is a
bad idea. You move from not being able to peer for a few months to not
being able to peer for a year.

Nathan Stratton CEO, NetRail, Inc. Tracking the future today!