RE: UUNET Press Release on Peering

Strikes me that the terms "diversely routed" and "geographically diverse"
can be interpretted wildly.

For most networks, I don't see a real problem dropping a couple extra
pairs of DS3s (assuming they were only at two NAPs to begin with).

There is if you do not have any "domestic" US customers. See below.

If UUNet requires a DS3 interconnect at LINX, MaeWest, MaeEast and say
(for giggles) Australia -- AND a diversely routed DS3 backbone in the
U.S. that takes on an entirely different meaning than the above.

... Cool. I can do the LINX. :slight_smile:

Only problem here for me is that (miles * BPS) is a formula that does not
work. My company has a very large customer base in the UK and is a direct
competitor of UUNET PIPEX. Big deal you say ? Networks who are competitors
always interconnect in the US you say ? This doesn't work in the big
picture for us, sitting and the end of a very expensive international T3
line and only competing in one market area.

(BTW We have not actually ever requested peering from UUNET outside of the
AS1849 seen at the LINX - so this is all hypothetical and I am using UUNETs
policy as an example of why some of these do not make sense in a global
scene - yes I also know this is NANOG)

Watch my hands on this one, and I will try to go slowly.

Scenario (a) - Demon Internet install a trans-US DS3 backbone, all centred
around New York, since this is where all our traffic flows throw. We have
no US customers, so the network is wasted, and the DS3's get used as
unidirectional pipes to the various NAPs.
Anyone wanna share this network ?

Scenario (b) - Demon Internet "pay" a direct competitor in their own market
for transit. I hope I do not even have to spell out the wonderful sales
calls our customers and prospects would get ? (BTW We *pay* MCI for

transit< services and have come to an arrangement with PSI - for those who

may try traceroutes - but until the Concert merger is final, MCI is *not*
seen as a competitor - and PSI we can deal with, since we are all nice

Scenario (c) - Demon Internet approach a number of large NSPs in the US
asking about customer-network peering only (not transit) at some mutually
agreed single point - sharing the actual costs of delivery. In the US of

Scenario (d) - Demon Internet approach same people as in (c) but for two
points, one in our territory - the UK. This means the US NSP has an
international backbone to worry about.

Guess which one I like ? But I will settle for (c). (Oh (d) for those who
didn't guess).

Anyone out there who want to *peer* with us in Scenarios (c) or (d) who
does not already do so, please let me know in private e-mail.

Anyhow, the point I am trying to make is that it is very much pointless for
companies like us to build a backbone when I do not have customers to use
it, and also that paying a company in the US for services, when we have an
"aggressive" competitive relationship in our own market is a non-starter.