Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: Ratios & peering [was: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions]
From: John Curran <jcurran () istaff org>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 07:46:05 -0500

On Nov 29, 2010, at 11:47 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
BTW: The attempt failed.  Dave @ Above got Exodus & Global Center to agree to pull a Cogent if GTEi pulled a Level 3. 
 GTEi blinked, and the rest is history.

Patrick - 

Your summary is incorrect. To be perfectly clear on the history: In 
summer of 1997, GTEi did indeed have a dispute with Exodus regarding 
traffic levels on peering interconnects, and indicated that it would 
cease peering.  On 16 Sep 1998, the dispute was resolved when Exodus 
signed an agreement with GTEi which was covered by non-disclosure at
Exodus's request[1][2].

Peering is a business relationship.  If your company can make more or spend less by peering with another company, you 
should do it.  If you do not consummate that relationship, you are hurting your business.  This should be the only 
reason to peer or not peer.

Correct, and indeed that was basic principle in operation during the 
GTEi/Exodus peering dispute.

FYI,
/John
CTO Emeritus 
BBN/GTEi

[1] <http://www.internetnews.com/xSP/article.php/44421/Exodus-GTE-Increase-Traffic-Exchanges.htm>
[2] <http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/1998-09/msg00373.html>



  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]
AlienVault