L3 announces new peering policy

Tom Vest tvest at eyeconomics.com
Thu Oct 13 13:19:31 CDT 2011


Note the distinction in the new peering relationship requirement -- only direct adjacencies with other transit-providing ASes count. 

...or did that change happen some time ago and I'm just noticing it now (?)

TV

On Oct 13, 2011, at 2:13 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:

> --- asr at latency.net wrote:
> From: Adam Rothschild <asr at latency.net>
> 
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 7:39 PM, Scott Weeks <surfer at mauigateway.com> wrote:
>> Isn't it just more of the same, or am I brainnumb today?
> 
> What's changed is the introduction of "bit miles" as a means of
> calculating equality, where traffic ratios might previously have been
> used.  Explained further, as pointed out on-list earlier:
> 
> http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021703819
> http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021703818
> 
> What will be interesting is whether new peering adjacencies crop up as
> a result of the new policy (I can think of several "smaller" global
> networks which now qualify, as it's written), or if this is just
> posturing on Level 3's part.  The next few months will be interesting
> for sure...
> ----------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> I do recall the bit-miles conversations, but didn't tie that into this.  doh!  Thanks for the links.  That kind of detail is what I should've been looking for and it explains everything. 
> 
> scott
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 1554 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20111013/c3dc6831/attachment.bin>


More information about the NANOG mailing list