Internet partitioning event regulations (was: RE: Sending vs requesting. Was: Re: Sprint / Cogent)

Michal Krsek michal at
Fri Nov 7 14:17:28 UTC 2008

> First, let me say that I think peering regulation is a terrible idea.
> No matter how cleverly you plan it, the result will be that fewer
> small companies can participate. That's the character of regulation:
> compliance creates more barriers to entry than it removes.
> That having been said, jurisdiction is a red herring. Every
> transit-free provider does at least some of its business in the United
> States. Economic reality compels them to continue to do so for the
> foreseeable future. That's all the hook the Feds need.

Have you kept in your mind that this may be changed in future? I know, 
we are talking in NANOG, but ... Some regions works on Internet 
development a bit faster than US and in future, this regulation may 
motivate some overseas players to stop peering in US. For example LINX 
and AMS-IX are good place to get peering in EU.


More information about the NANOG mailing list