Sean Donelan wrote:
You'll find that meeting the peering "requirements" and actually obtaining
a peering agreement are two different things.
Sprint had several sets of peering requirements, nevertheless it didn't
prevent them from not setting up a single new peering agreement with a
variety of networks which met those requirements for over three years if
you believe Sprint's product manager.
Perhaps my comments were not "crystal" clear, because many of the
comments in this thread have missed the core of my observations,
The fact that Worldcom/MCI/UUNet has publicly stated it's peering policy
When Worldcom/UUNet attempted to gobble MCI up, a couple of companies
including GTE Internetworking hitchhiked to Washington DC, and objected
on a number of grounds... not important to this discussion per se, but
related to competition, and monopolies, etc. During the course of the
conflict the nature and existence of uneven and arbitrary peering
policies hit the radar screens of the various legislative bodies. The
exact details are confidential, but if John Curran was permitted, and so
inclined, he could educate many here.
Nonetheless, one of the things that came out of it was an understanding
by the DC crew that peering could make or break big and small players.
Just ask Level3 and QWEST what life has been like
I also don't believe that it was a coincidence that Genuity/GTE was the
first to make a public statement of it's peering policy.
Now all well and good, but Genuity and Sprint and C&W and AT&T and IBM
etc. are really not as significant in traffic delivered to end users as
is UUNet. And if you don't peer with UUNet, all the other peering in the
world still means that you probably have to pay for the delivery of a
significant portion (say ~50%) of your traffic. Don't respond
individually to say that *you* are different because you have an AOL
centric product, and say UUNet is irrelevant to you. Perhaps it is, but
most of the world needs UUNet in a major way.
So when UUNet posts it's peering policy publicly, despite what you, SMD
and Randy say, it will *not* be simple in any way for UUNet to refuse to
peer if you meet the publicly stated requirements. They *cannot* do so
arbitrarily any more. Their criteria are plain as day. And if they do
procrastinate, or reject peering, on any grounds not related to lack of
meeting the criteria, they have laid the groundwork for a legislative
baseball hat that will beat them senseless. As a) a public company, and
b) the beneficiary of a legislative ruling re various merger activities,
if they "pull any of that crap" they'll invite probably successful
And it is because of their dominant position that this is a remarkable
event. If a company meets the criteria to peer (in the true sense, i.e.
without filter, fee, or settlement) with UUNet, I would bet that they
would be able to peer with every other significant network.
I have no doubt that UUNet has peered with other 'interesting' networks
over the last couple of years, quietly, under NDA. It's the public
aspect here that is "interesting".
I'd love to know if the reason UUNet took this step was in response to
government pressure, or a decision based on the fact that ISPs have
become so damn adept at negotiating prices below that of what "regular"
companies pay (which some may remember was opposite to the way it was in
the 'olden' days) that they have decided to get their revenue elsewhere.
Or something else?