L3 announces new peering policy

Patrick W. Gilmore patrick at ianai.net
Thu Oct 13 13:22:01 CDT 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....

-- 
TTFN,
patrick


> 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
>> 
> 




More information about the NANOG mailing list