PAIX (was Re: Interconnects)

Daniel Golding dgolding at sockeye.com
Thu May 23 03:28:50 UTC 2002


Ralph,

Your false assumption is that any of these folks would sign a MLPA at a
new or existing peering point, where such an agreement did not already
exist. The major reason most of these guys are on the AADS MLPA is that
they don't want to Unsign it. In other words, it's a done deal, a fact
on the ground, not something they care to revise - something historic,
not current. 

Even if there was an MLPA at PAIX, introduced tomorrow, there is
vanishingly small chance that anyone would sign up. For that matter, in
many ways MLPAs are counterintuitive to the very idea of peering,
because there is no mechanism to ensure that both partners in any given
relationship are peers, in the sense of size, network, traffic balance,
etc. That is why most folks prefer BLPAs these days - it allows you to
be much pickier about who you peer with, and ensure they are a proper
counterpart to your network.

- Daniel Golding

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog at merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog at merit.edu] On 
> Behalf Of Ralph Doncaster
> Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 10:29 AM
> To: Majdi S. Abbas
> Cc: nanog at merit.edu
> Subject: Re: PAIX (was Re: Interconnects)
> 
> 
> 
> > traffic.  If you're going to have to negotiate bilateral 
> agreements to 
> > cover the bulk of your peering traffic, why not 
> consistantly negotiate 
> > bilateral agreements?
> 
> Randy (Group Telecom) snubbed me when I asked to peer at 
> TorIX.  Group Telecom is on the AADS MLPA.  AT&T Canada has a 
> tough policy re peering as well, and is on the AADS MLPA.  
> I'm sure there are others among the AADS MLPA signatories 
> that would refuse bilateral peering if I approached them.
> 
> -Ralph
> 
> 




More information about the NANOG mailing list