Do you feel that UUNET's own network doesn't meet the criteria set out
in the press release? How so?
Which of UUNET's peers who are able to continue to peer with them, would
you say do not follow the criteria set out in the press release?
Actually I was thinking of a few other providers, but it is a common
occurance among all providers with requirements for peering. MCI's
requirement for a fully-meshed backbone. AGIS's requirement to connect
to five exchange points, and already have peering agreements with many
other providers. I haven't seen UUNET's actual peering requirements, just
the press release, so maybe this is just a case of poor PR writing.
But the press release does give some details about the backbone. It
says DS3's or higher are used on "major" routes. Which begs the question,
what does the backbone use on "minor" routes? Few providers have homogenous
backbones. They usually have a wide range of circuit types, speeds, media.
The definition of backbone, major, route, diverse, dedicated, etc are
ratholes you go down when you venture past the 'public' interface between
I'm not trying to pick on a particular provider, just pointing out things
you need to consider if you plan to write a requirements document. I
don't like putting ratholes into requirements if they aren't really
requirements. Last summer, you could substitute AGIS for UUNET, and
had the same debate. In the end its not a techinical decision, its
a business decision. I would really like to avoid the fiasco that
happened with Western Union and the whole notion of "International
Record Carriers" and "Record Carriers" that happened before the FAX
machine made the teletype obsolete.