Sprint peering policy

Mon Jul 1 20:13:42 UTC 2002

---
> 
> I would venture to say that to WorldCom, all traffic is destined to a 
> peer, or a customer, and they NEVER pay for traffic. Peering with them

> is entirely a courtesy from them to you, as they can always see you 
> through their current peers.

I think you missed the definition of "tier 1"... Oh wait, we're all
using made-up definitions anyways. Nevermind.
---

That's my definition of "Tier 1", in case you hadn't guessed.

---
> The fact that they failed, having had such extensive peering, proves 
> that peering has no relation to financial difficulties (in my mind, at
> least)

You are one very confused individual.
---

You are saying that Wcom doesn't peer enough to remain financially
viable?

I was never a Wcom subscriber, but I would venture to guess that they
never go more than 30ms extra (and almost never more than 20ms extra)
than any other carrier starting at the same physical location, and
ending at the same network location.

eg, verio has "a lot" of peering in NYC, Virginia, and Chicago.  50% of
my traffic to them gets dumped off in NYC or Newark (close), 25% in
virginia, 25% in chicago.
I avoid the chicago and virginia peers as much as possible.

I would assume that Wcom would have probably closer to 75% staying in
NYC, but, this is completely an assumption. If I'm correct, then I think
that is more than enough peering to keep their customers happy, no?

--Phil