Ralph, Your false assumption is that any of these folks would sign a MLPA at a new or existing peering point, where such an agreement did not already exist. The major reason most of these guys are on the AADS MLPA is that they don't want to Unsign it. In other words, it's a done deal, a fact on the ground, not something they care to revise - something historic, not current. Even if there was an MLPA at PAIX, introduced tomorrow, there is vanishingly small chance that anyone would sign up. For that matter, in many ways MLPAs are counterintuitive to the very idea of peering, because there is no mechanism to ensure that both partners in any given relationship are peers, in the sense of size, network, traffic balance, etc. That is why most folks prefer BLPAs these days - it allows you to be much pickier about who you peer with, and ensure they are a proper counterpart to your network. - Daniel Golding
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Ralph Doncaster Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 10:29 AM To: Majdi S. Abbas Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: PAIX (was Re: Interconnects)
traffic. If you're going to have to negotiate bilateral agreements to cover the bulk of your peering traffic, why not consistantly negotiate bilateral agreements?
Randy (Group Telecom) snubbed me when I asked to peer at TorIX. Group Telecom is on the AADS MLPA. AT&T Canada has a tough policy re peering as well, and is on the AADS MLPA. I'm sure there are others among the AADS MLPA signatories that would refuse bilateral peering if I approached them.
-Ralph