L3 announces new peering policy
Patrick W. Gilmore
patrick at ianai.net
Thu Oct 13 18:22:01 UTC 2011
On Oct 13, 2011, at 2:19 PM, Tom Vest wrote:
> 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 (?)
It is new.
I'm unclear how that has anything to do with what they need as a business other than to carve out potential customers from the pool.
Actually, we are all very clear....
> 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:
>> 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.
More information about the NANOG