L3 announces new peering policy
Tom Vest
tvest at eyeconomics.com
Thu Oct 13 18:19:31 UTC 2011
Note the distinction in the new peering relationship requirement -- only direct adjacencies with other transit-providing ASes count.
...or did that change happen some time ago and I'm just noticing it now (?)
TV
On Oct 13, 2011, at 2:13 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
> --- asr at latency.net wrote:
> From: Adam Rothschild <asr at latency.net>
>
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 7:39 PM, Scott Weeks <surfer at mauigateway.com> wrote:
>> Isn't it just more of the same, or am I brainnumb today?
>
> What's changed is the introduction of "bit miles" as a means of
> calculating equality, where traffic ratios might previously have been
> used. Explained further, as pointed out on-list earlier:
>
> http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021703819
> http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021703818
>
> What will be interesting is whether new peering adjacencies crop up as
> a result of the new policy (I can think of several "smaller" global
> networks which now qualify, as it's written), or if this is just
> posturing on Level 3's part. The next few months will be interesting
> for sure...
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> I do recall the bit-miles conversations, but didn't tie that into this. doh! Thanks for the links. That kind of detail is what I should've been looking for and it explains everything.
>
> scott
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 1554 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20111013/c3dc6831/attachment.bin>
More information about the NANOG
mailing list