Best way to deal with bad advertisements?

Sun Sep 29 16:53:30 UTC 1996

> 
> > I don't quite remember how we went from black holes to peering policies,
> > but I certainly will put my two bits in ;0
> 
> Off topic is fun :)
> 
> > MCI's policy seems very clear to myself.  They require DS3 backbone, 3
> > DS3 IXPs and 24X7 noc.  If you meet the requirement, you sign a document
> > and then peering is initiated.  Took a matter of 2-3 weeks for myself.
> 
> Yes but... maybe you didn't see what I said. Why should *I* (my
> company) install a US wide national network, to no-ones advantage
> except the leased line company, when we have already made the *huge*
> effort of moving the data across the atlantic.
> 
> All these 3IX at DS3 policies indicate to me is the bigoted, pro-US
> nature of the NSPs over there. How about paying there way, since
> more and more of the content and customers are outside the US and
> it is in the interests of the customers of the NSPs to have better
> connecivity to Europe/Asia/elsewhere.
> 
> Now don't get me wrong, I do not believe that the folks on the
> ground are in anyway that unconcious of the outside of the US, but
> past history gives the executives of these NSPs (Sprint in particular)
> the attitude that "if they [non-US NSP/ISPs] have paid for the line
> themselves up 'til now, lets see what else we can screw out of
> them".
> 

I agree with you that the US NSPs/ISPs are extremely bigoted with regards to
the Europeans.  We somehow think that the Internet revolves around the 
US, which may be partially true..  only until big brother over here gets
on the regulation bandwagon and destroys our market.  Getting really off
the topic now ;)

Nowhere in any of the above mentioned ISPs have I seen a policy stating
that these had to be US DS3 IXP connections.  I'm interested to see how
many of the 3 have connectivity into LINX and other IXPs in Europe.  That
should/could qualify I suppose.  If it didn't, then they are making a huge
mistake.  By having the Europeans front the cost for transatlantic, and then
not peering with them, seems not only selfish, but idiotic. 

> > UUNet's policy is the one I have a problem with--there is no policy it 
> > seems.  UUNET went from peering with everyone, regionals, etc. when Andrew
> > Partan was there, to now not peering with anyone.  They act interested, but
> > then will come back to you with a.  Private Peerings via DS3s or b.  No peering
> > because your network is not equivalent in size to the "multiple DS3s" they have
> > coming from each hub.  I still have not seen any written policies from
> > UUNET.
> 
> I have been informed that the new policy is being formulated and
> there may be something this year.
> 
> All this means is that the big NSPs will get good connectivity to
> each other and the rest of the market will have good connectivity
> to each other and then the bleed over between the two "tiers".

I don't know why, but I am optimisitc that Sprint will do the right thing.

> 
> Market forces will eventually win, but how many customers of the
> "other tier" ISPs will be pissed off during this time ?
Realistically, wouldn't you agree that that is the goal of the NSPs and ISPs
that won't peer?  It obviously is not a resource hog.  There ARE alternative
motives.  But who can blame them in the wonderful world of the commercial
Internet?  It could be worse..  Uncle U.S. could step in and force them to
peer with everyone.  

Rob
Exodus Communications Inc.