Inter-provider relations

Fri Oct 25 13:38:08 UTC 1996

By major providers, I mean ANS, Agis (questioning this one now), UUNET, MCI,
Sprint, BBN, etc.  Not the 60+ on mae-east.  All the above mentioned have
policies, or lack of policies but at least claim to have them.

While I agree in theory with the MLPA concept, the only "headache" it truly
alleviates is that of getting any contract signed.  It doesn't mystically
configure the direct peering or the peering through the routing arbiter.
While it may be a good step for the regionals, we backed away from it on the
PB-NAP (after pushing and pushing for it) because it left us feeling a bit
out of control...

A centralized database, wherein all contacts from an ISP/NSP are kept (new
peering contacts, admin, techie, etc) along with current peering policy seems
like something that would have alleviated hundreds of hours for me..
Maybe the tooth fairy will deliver it someday..

Rob
> 
> On Thu, 24 Oct 1996, Robert Bowman wrote:
> > Not that I agree at all with AGIS's new stance on peering and market domination
> > but we have to understand that the "friendly" Internet has long since past.
> > Every major provider now has very strict provisions for peering.  These
> > are obviously in their best interests for whatever reasons.
> 
> In practice, I have found this to not be true, unless you define "major 
> provider" as one who *has* strict peering provisions....:)  Generally I 
> have found most providers very willing to peer at Mae-East and Mae-West, 
> after all, that's why they spend the money to connect there. The problem 
> is getting their attention.  The folks who make the peering decisions and 
> implement them are usually the busiest folks in the organization (not 
> because of peering decisions, they usually have lots of other (better?) 
> things to do.)
> 
> What would help, would be a way to reduce the effort involved in setting up
> these peerings.  At the DC Nanog, I proposed a Multilateral Universal
> Peering arrangement, consisting of an agreement and a few changes to the
> RAs, specifically in the area of macros or include statments.  It would
> work this way: any provider who wished to (and met the criteria?), could
> sign the agreement and with a few changes to the RA macro, be peered
> thru the RAs to all the other signatories.  The model today requires
> N*(N-1) discussions, with N approaching 100 at Mae-East, this is a waste
> of resources.  Unfortunately the needed software changes to the RAs is not
> yet ready, but once it is, I plan to try and get this effort started.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Robert Laughlin
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> DataXchange sales:  800-863-1550 http://www.dx.net
>        Network Operations Center:  703-903-7412 -or- 888-903-7412
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 