Rodney Joffe is being optimistic; the fact is that a network that
exceeds the minimum requirements UUNET has published yet which has
zero customers, is simply not going to get a no-settlement peering
agreement with UUNET. "Zero" here is a relative term.
Sean.
>If I understand the document correctly, anyone who meets their clear
>requirements will be able to exchange traffic with them at no charge.
[...]
smd@clock.org wrote:
Rodney Joffe is being optimistic; the fact is that a network that
exceeds the minimum requirements UUNET has published yet which has
zero customers, is simply not going to get a no-settlement peering
agreement with UUNET. "Zero" here is a relative term.Sean.
> >If I understand the document correctly, anyone who meets their clear
> >requirements will be able to exchange traffic with them at no charge.
[...]
> >Rodney Joffe
> >CenterGate Research Group, LLC.
I believe that if you examine the UUNet requirements, it states:
First:
1.2
Traffic Exchange Ratio. The ratio of the
aggregate
amount of traffic exchanged between the
Requester and the
WorldCom Internet Network with which it
seeks to
interconnect shall be roughly balanced and
shall not exceed
1.5:1.
and second:
1.4
Traffic Volume. The aggregate amount of
traffic
exchanged in each direction over all
interconnection links
between the Requester and the WorldCom
Internet
Network with which it desires to
interconnect shall equal or
exceed 150 Mbps of traffic for
WorldCom-US, 30 Mbps
of traffic for WorldCom-Europe, and 5 Mbps
of traffic for
WorldCom-ASPAC
While it is theoretically possible that this could be achieved with no
customers (e.g. CNN, or Yahoo), I think it is highly unlikely that both
parts of the equation would hold up. What would a publisher possibly be
a receiver of that would equate to 100mbs in the US? And if they did,
why would they have local access points in 15 states?
Or am I missing something Sean?
Or not. Here are a few notable quotes, for people too busy to read
the entire thread:
"Wonderful- they're letting people 'peer' into their network. This
will obviously just become another option for script kiddies to
exploit. Us sysadmins go through years of training to SECURE
systems, and now they go and let people peer into them. I bet they
let people take files, too. Just like those piracy programs, but
worse. Doesn't the thought of someone peering at your hard drive
make anyone else nervous?"
"Last I checked, AOL *only* 'peers' at MAE East, and refuses to
private-peer with anyone, with the possible exception of Exodus. So
I doubt they'd wanna play ball with UUNet anyway [...]"
Heh. Further proof that Slashdot is (with a few exceptions, of
course) an excellent example of the blind leading the blind. 
-adam
Those didn't even rate a flame they are so clueless.
Just a note folks: If you're going to quote a slashdot response, pick
one, find the specific URL to that response and post that. I found
NOTHING (as usual) in the form of INFORMED response in the thread. If
someone did, I'm obviously not looking at the right anonymous coward
posting.