Peering Policies and Route Servers

Nathan Stratton nathan at
Mon Apr 29 20:37:38 UTC 1996

On Mon, 29 Apr 1996, Ali Marashi wrote:

> I had a few questions to direct to the group at large that I believe are
> of a "network operational" nature.
> (1) I have heard that Sprint and MCI currently require an organization to
> peer with them at a minimum of three exchange points, where one must be on
> a different coast.  I have been unable to confirm this directly from the
> sources yet.  Would anyone care to share what knowledge they have on the
> subject?  Are any other large providers (e.g., ANS) adhering to similar
> policies?  As Internet traffic increases across the large backbones, could
> this be a trend that continues with other providers?

Yep, and yes I think it will continue.

> (2) Could anyone share opinions/facts regarding why organizations may or
> may not exchange routes via the Route Servers rather than direct peering
> relationships at the NAPs?

Well, because say that Sprint and MCI would peer, a provider would only
just stay at one NAP. That provider could then sell large dedicated
connections and in a way do it on Sprint's and MCI's network. I think they
they are trying to keep a lot of startups like me from growing and being a
large competitor.

I think that if a provider only wants to peer at one point, that MCI and
Sprint should not peer, but I think that if a provider lays out a network
plan and works to say get a 2 more NAPs in say 6 months that they should

Nathan Stratton		  CEO, NetRail, Inc.    Tracking the future today!
Phone   (703)524-4800                          NetRail, Inc.
Fax     (703)534-5033                          2007 N. 15 St. Suite 5
Email   sales at                      Arlington, Va. 22201
WWW                Access: (703) 524-4802 guest
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about
itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own."               Matthew 6:34

More information about the NANOG mailing list