On Mon, 29 Apr 1996, Ali Marashi wrote:
I had a few questions to direct to the group at large that I believe are of a "network operational" nature.
(1) I have heard that Sprint and MCI currently require an organization to peer with them at a minimum of three exchange points, where one must be on a different coast. I have been unable to confirm this directly from the sources yet. Would anyone care to share what knowledge they have on the subject? Are any other large providers (e.g., ANS) adhering to similar policies? As Internet traffic increases across the large backbones, could this be a trend that continues with other providers?
Yep, and yes I think it will continue.
(2) Could anyone share opinions/facts regarding why organizations may or may not exchange routes via the Route Servers rather than direct peering relationships at the NAPs?
Well, because say that Sprint and MCI would peer, a provider would only just stay at one NAP. That provider could then sell large dedicated connections and in a way do it on Sprint's and MCI's network. I think they they are trying to keep a lot of startups like me from growing and being a large competitor. I think that if a provider only wants to peer at one point, that MCI and Sprint should not peer, but I think that if a provider lays out a network plan and works to say get a 2 more NAPs in say 6 months that they should peer. Nathan Stratton CEO, NetRail, Inc. Tracking the future today! --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Phone (703)524-4800 NetRail, Inc. Fax (703)534-5033 2007 N. 15 St. Suite 5 Email sales@netrail.net Arlington, Va. 22201 WWW http://www.netrail.net/ Access: (703) 524-4802 guest --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Matthew 6:34