Making interconnection agreements between networks more dynamic

Christopher Morrow morrowc.lists at gmail.com
Wed May 24 01:49:34 UTC 2017


On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Nick Hilliard <nick at foobar.org> wrote:

> Pedro de Botelho Marcos wrote:
> > The current approach for establishing
> > agreements is cumbersome, typically requiring lengthy discussions.
>
> i'm not sure the available data supports this conclusion:
>
> > http://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_
> matter/berec/download/0/6574-2016-survey-of-internet-
> carrier-intercon_0.pdf
>
> which notes:
>
> > Of the total analyzed agreements, 1,347 (0.07%) were formalized in
> > written contracts. This is down from 0.49% in 2011. The remaining
> > 1,934,166 (99.93%) were “handshake” agreements in which the parties
> > agreed to informal or commonly understood terms without creating a
> > written document.
>
>
it's totally possible that the OP was not talking about "peering" as
interconnection (entirely) but also 'customer interconnect' as
interconnection.

So... "I have 1gbps of traffic I need to send to elbonia-telcom (today) ,
and tomorrow maybe 3?"
means provision a 10g link with 1g commit and burst at X cents/mbps... or
whatever... and that works 'today'.

Tomorrow you realized 'whoops, by 3gbps I really meant 13... err, now I
need to provision a 100g link or add another 10g and LAG... which means
90day telco turnaround on link provisioning...

-chris


More information about the NANOG mailing list