
On Mon, 04 June 2001, "Vivien M." wrote:
> It's not likely to be a big technical deal, but the irony I find to be quite
> prominent. First PSI forced others to make transit arrangements because of
> their greed, and now CW is possibly making PSI do the same, for probably the
> same motives.

The funny thing about "peering policies" is they are no set policy.
Networks can write whatever requirements or non-requirements they
choose.  Claims that one network or another doesn't meet arbitrary
"peering requirements" should always be examined skeptically.  Who
set these requirements?  If you put all the peering requirements into
a barral and drew them out randomly, would provider P or C still met
any arbitrary requirements from the barrel?

Some regular NANOG attendees remember when AGIS implemented their new
peering policy.  Now, nobody cares about AGIS's peeering requirements.

Some regular NANOG attendees remember when PSI implemented their new
peering policy.  Now, nobody cares about PSI's peering requirements.

Cable & Wireless has implemented their new peering policy.  I wonder
how long it will be before nobody cares about C&W's peering requirements.
After their acquisition of InternetMCI customers, C&W was extremely slow
in upgrading their network and even slower in upgrading their peering
connections.

PSI concentrating in international expansion, so their US network is
probably smaller than some other US-based providers.  On their other
hand, if you evaluated PSI as an international provider you might find
they meet the "peering requirements" for international providers since
other US-based providers are relatively weak elsewhere in the world.

Should C&W purchase international transit from PSI?  If C&W doesn't want
to peer with PSI's international network, I guess C&W will have to decide
if they want to buy transit or do without.



