Sprint peering policy

Fri Jun 28 23:49:02 UTC 2002

At 05:28 PM 6/28/2002 +0000, Vijay Gill wrote:

 >Dan, if you are a peer of sprint and I use the word peer as in:
 >
 >1 : one that is of equal standing with another : EQUAL; especially :
 >one belonging to the same societal group especially based on age,
 >grade, or status
 >
 >then I am sure things can happen.
 >
 >Keeping the above definition of peering in mind, and not the current
 >accepted definition of what "peering" means, things suddenly become
 >crystal clear.

Not trying to start a "peering" debate, but I do believe there are benefits 
to peering with networks which are not your "equal", in both directions.

OTOH, some networks who peered with anyone and everyone did not 
survive.  While some networks who peered with no one have also died.  (And 
some who peer with no one just over-report EBITDA by more than the GNP of 
many countries. :-)  So I am not sure there is any strong evidence that 
peering or not is good for long term economic viability.

I do believe there is operational evidence that a more open peering policy 
can reduce latency to off-net locations, but I am sure there are other 
reasons to close your peering policy.

Fortunately, there are few regulations, so most networks may peer with 
whomever they please - equal or otherwise.

 >vijay "time to put back the peer in peering" gill

And to think you used to work for Above.Net....

-- 
TTFN,
patrick