I actually think this is put very well. I know that in my case I'd prefer to buy transit from a company who has an open peering policy. For example, I'd certainly consider buying transit from mfn before uunet for example. I realize there are many other factors including relyability, cost, company stability etc. but one consideration ior me is their willingness to peer and grow their networks. I wouuld think especially on this list our arguments should stick to being as strictly technical as possible and not venture in to the personal. Easier said than done I realize. However, strong arguments for using networks with open peering policies are more meaningful than ridiculing large carriers who don't wish to peer.
The only thing I can say is I wish they would just publically acknowledge that fact. If uunet and cw don't wish to peer they should just not have a peering policy. On Thu, 9 May 2002, Daniel Golding wrote: > > I have some trouble seeing why folks are so interested in meeting or > debating peering requirements set out by carriers that have made it quite > clear that they are not taking new peers. Most of the published requirements > from these carriers serve two functions - to prevent new peers, and to > depeer those who are felt to be not worthy. And even the latter is tenuous - > most bilateral peering agreements allow for cancellation at will for > absolutely no cause. > > Peering is a business relationship. Refusing to peer does not make one bad, > nor does it damn the peering coordinator to eternal damnation. It also does > not reflect on those who work for the carrier in other roles, especially > those brave enough to post to NANOG on peering matters. Some folks take > exception to having ANY sort of peering requirements, like the person who > told me that they thought a carrier that required bicoastal peering and an > OC-12 network has peering requirements "worse than UUNET". Peering > requirements, especially rational ones like multiple location peering, are > not in any way bad. > > If you don't approve of a carrier's peering policy, you have a couple > options... > > You can publicly denounce them on a forum like this, which has doubtful > effect. > > You can turn away their sales folks, the next time they try to sell you > transit. However, if you say "I won't buy transit from you, because you > won't peer from me", don't expect any sort of reaction other than "goodbye", > because there is no lost revenue potential - you would never have purchased > transit in any case. However, if you say "because you won't peer with other > large networks, it decreases the quality of your network, so I won't buy > your transit". They may be more effective. However, that needs to happen > much more than the sales people hear "I won't buy transit from you because > I'm a peer". > > You can take it out on individuals who you feel are responsible, by refusing > to do business with them or hire them in the future. This is very tricky, as > all employees of a carrier are not in any way responsible for a carrier's > peering policy. Of course, if you get some weasel who comes in for a job > interview, with "senior peering engineer" on their resume, and brags about > his role in depeering, say, PSI, then I suppose such persons deserve what > they get. However, it's rare that this comes up. Additionally, punishing > folks for enforcing rational peering requirements is counterproductive. > > I guess the best thing you can do is not take peering matters personally, > and to remember that peering decisions are business decisions, and they by > personalizing them, it creates unnecessary animosity. > > - Daniel Golding > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > > Ralph Doncaster > > Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 12:20 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: ratios > > > > > > > > > Plus, wtf is this clause about announcing 5000 routes? What a crock of > > > s**t! This really encourages aggregation, doesn't it? > > > > And even AS6461 barely squeaks by with 5571 routes the last time I checked > > a couple weeks ago. I don't think this policy is for real - if they > > actually enforce it then it will completely change the tier-1 landscape. > > Here's few more stats I just checked: > > Verio AS2914 - 1430 prefixes > > L3 AS3356 4168 prefixes > > Genuity AS1 - 7406 prefixes > > > > -Ralph > > > > >