Bill, A short answer to your refusal to peer objection in SPRINT's policies in the form of a question. Which is better: 1. peering with everyone at an exchange, including those ISPs who are clearly clueless, and whose cluelessness leads to operational problems, i.e. injection of bogus routes, black holes, routing loops, routing flaps, and BGP peer transitions? 2. qualifying each of your peers as being clueful, prior to peering with them, such that you (and your customers!) don't suffer from the cluelessness of others? Perhaps the easy way out is to suggest that educating the ISPs as to what constitutes good behavior at an exchange (routing system stability and reliable packet delivery) is the responsibility of the exchange operators, and it might even be possible to enforce some interesting policies in that regard in the route servers (e.g. if you have more than N routing or BGP peer transitions per time period, the route server will refuse to peer with you for 48 hours - think of it as the hold-down or damper from Hell). I certainly think that to the extent that the exchange operators can measure such things as routing and peer stability, it is in everyone's interest to see the numbers (except those ISPs who are unstable). Who knows? A series good reports from exchange operators about an ISP might lead to offers of private peering arrangements outside of the exchange, to the benefit of the ISP. Similar to the way that having a good credit record seems to lead to endless offers of more credit. Lucky me, I'm just a customer, and don't have to worry about such issues, except as they affect my ISPs. Of course, I do expect my ISPs to deliver on the goods I'm paying them for: routing system stability and reliable delivery of packets... Erik E. Fair apple!fair fair@apple.com