worries me; this is like announcing at the UN that you can only vote
if you have nuclear weapons. Some will be needless encouraged to add
complexity to their networks simply to be a "Tier 1".
I like that! Are the "Tier 1" providers going to create a BGP
non-proliferation pact? I was wondering why AGIS, AT&T/BBNplanet,
MCI, and Sprint suddenly all needed to have their peering policies
reviewed by their lawyers at the same time.
I have this sinking feeling things are getting worse with people
trying to one-up each other. You can't be a "Tier 1" provider unless
your router config is 30,000 lines long. Well, my router config
is 40,000 lines long, so I'm even better. Perhaps the adage should
be "Making a network complicated is simple, but making a network
simple is complicated."
Some providers "requirements" seem to just add complexity for the
sake of complexity. Personally I find today's front-door peerings
infinitely easier to maintain than some of the backdoor monsters we
used to sneak around the AUP requirements. But if nasty looking
router configs is what it takes to be a Tier 1 provider, I can make
mine as grody looking as the next guy's.