UUNET Pulling Peering Agreements & replacing them with charging under non-disclosure?

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

Oh hell. I was just explaining to my boss last week how none of these
NSPs trust each other and so that's why all these packets have to cross
the country twice to get 20 miles down the road etc etc and now if
UUNET is pulling peers then he's _really_ going to have my head.

Several questions:

1 - What is the point of the NDA? Is the NDA precedented?

2 - Are they pulling CIX peering? (Can that rtr get any more overloaded? :slight_smile:

Last I heard, when the CIX moves locations, AGIS, MCI, UUNET, and Sprint
will all be leaving the CIX.

3 - One of my upstream providers claims that Sprint pulled peering
abruptly on them this morning without any warning and is now charging
them $X (where X is a large number) to peer. Has this happened to anyone
else, is it a Sprint policy to always charge for new peers, etc?

Thanks,

-Tung-Hui Hu
hhui@arcfour.com

Well, this is the way its going to be. Can anyone really be that
surprised? I've been watching this trend for over a year now. From a
small network standpoint, it sux. I work for a small network now, and now
I have to budget financing to talk to these other networks.

But for the big boys, they are loosing money. They have to put up huge
amounts of bandwidth at the exchanges, so people can transverse their
network free of charge. In a business sense, where is the cost
justification here?

Well Gordo, I know you hate anything AGIS, but they saw this coming a mile
away and acted on it. I guess we know now why the big boys never
complained about the AGIS peering policy, because in the back of their
minds, they thought it was a good idea.

Markl

Mark E Larson
Senior Network Architect
RUSTnet Inc.

2

Isn't this the point of paying the UUnet, MCI, RUSTnet NSP for transit?
Each network has been paid by it's customer to carry data, in or out
of their network if need be.

If a end user that happens to have choosen connectivity other than UUnet
wants to view the web pages of one of my clients, I've already paid UUnet
to carry that traffic, but now UUnet wants more from the peer to let that
traffic pass to their network. Sounds like being paid twice to carry the
same packets.

I have logged a complaint with UUnet about this and have stated my pending
order for a DS3 from them will be reconcidered if they make the choice to
peer for a fee. I was also called by a UUnet exec this morning and they
say there will be a statement coming on Monday.

3

Tim Flavin wrote:

If a end user that happens to have choosen connectivity other than UUnet
wants to view the web pages of one of my clients, I've already paid UUnet
to carry that traffic, but now UUnet wants more from the peer to let that
traffic pass to their network. Sounds like being paid twice to carry the
same packets.

Dow Jones gathers economic news from around the globe and then sells
that
very same news about 10 ways-- the Wall Street Journal, the Asian Wall
Street Journal, the Wall Street Journal Europe, Dow Jones News
Retrieval,
the National Business Employment Weekly, the WSJ web site, the Dow Jones
News Ticker (if it still exists), Telerate... Have you informed the
president of Dow Jones that if he doesn't start giving away everything
but the WSJ that you're going to cancel your subscription?

I encourage you to vote with your dollars, as many others will.

Sounds like the great American way to me.

-peter

PS: Part of the great American way is learning from failure. UU.NET's
success in their endeavor is by no means a sure thing.