UUNET peering policy

Thu Jan 11 00:50:39 UTC 2001

Theres been a bit of an update, see a link on www.slashdot.org.

	Bri

On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Rodney Joffe wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> smd at clock.org wrote:
> > 
> > Rodney Joffe is being optimistic; the fact is that a network that
> > exceeds the minimum requirements UUNET has published yet which has
> > zero customers, is simply not going to get a no-settlement peering
> > agreement with UUNET.   "Zero" here is a relative term.
> > 
> >         Sean.
> > 
> > | >If I understand the document correctly, anyone who meets their clear
> > | >requirements will be able to exchange traffic with them at no charge.
> > [...]
> > | >Rodney Joffe
> > | >CenterGate Research Group, LLC.
> 
> I believe that if you examine the UUNet requirements, it states:
> 
> First:
>                           1.2
>                               Traffic Exchange Ratio. The ratio of the
> aggregate
>                               amount of traffic exchanged between the
> Requester and the
>                               WorldCom Internet Network with which it
> seeks to
>                               interconnect shall be roughly balanced and
> shall not exceed
>                               1.5:1. 
> and second:
>                           1.4
>                               Traffic Volume. The aggregate amount of
> traffic
>                               exchanged in each direction over all
> interconnection links
>                               between the Requester and the WorldCom
> Internet
>                               Network with which it desires to
> interconnect shall equal or
>                               exceed 150 Mbps of traffic for
> WorldCom-US, 30 Mbps
>                               of traffic for WorldCom-Europe, and 5 Mbps
> of traffic for
>                               WorldCom-ASPAC
> 
> While it is theoretically possible that this could be achieved with no
> customers (e.g. CNN, or Yahoo), I think it is highly unlikely that both
> parts of the equation would hold up. What would a publisher possibly be
> a receiver of that would equate to 100mbs in the US? And if they did,
> why would they have local access points in 15 states?
> 
> Or am I missing something Sean?
> 
> -- 
> Rodney Joffe
> CenterGate Research Group, LLC.
> http://www.centergate.com
> "Technology so advanced, even we don't understand it!"(SM)
> 