Hi all - Restrictive Peering Policies: The Great Debate ------------------------------------------------------------------- Monday Evening at the upcoming Peering BOF at NANOG 30 in Miami we are trying something new: at the beginning of the Peering BOF there will be "A Great Debate" on the topic of Restrictive Peering Policies. Taking the Pro: side is Vijay Gill who will argue "A Restrictive Peering Policy makes business sense." Taking the Con: side is Avi Freedman who will argue "Restrictive Peering Policies are counter productive." Note: The views presented do not necessarily represent the views of the individuals or their employers; the debaters have been coached to present the most compelling case possible given the following rough peering policy classifications and definitions: Open means that the entity will generally agree to peer with anyone in any single location with no prerequisites. Selective means that the entity will generally peer but there are some prerequisites (such as meeting in multiple Interconnect Regions, with a minimum traffic volume, not to exceed a certain In/Out traffic ratio, etc). The Peering Policy documents these prerequisites, which, once met, generally lead to peering. Restrictive means that the entity is generally not open to new peering. The Peering Policy documents extremely difficult to meet peering prerequisites, with the unstated purpose of denying peering. Peering is defined as a business relationship whereby two entities reciprocally and freely exchange access to each others customers. Transit is defined as a business relationship whereby one entity sells access to the *entire* Internet to another. There are of course variations of the above including Paid Peering (exchange of access to each others customers with some form of settlement) and Partial Transit (one entity sells access to part of the Internet, typically broader than just their customers). The format of the Debate: Coin Flip to decide who goes first Side A presents their position (3.5 minutes) Side B presents their position (3.5 minutes) Side A counters and/or reinforces their own position (3.5 minutes) Side B counters and/or reinforces their own position (3.5 minutes) Side A Summation (3.5 minutes) Side B Summation (3.5 minutes) The audience will vote "Who makes the more compelling case" to determine the winner of the debate. My hope is that this will focus the light on an issue that seems to have always caused a great deal more heat than light in the Peering Coordinator Community. Perhaps we will see that there are indeed reasonable and rational arguments on both sides of this debate. Following the debate will be Peering Personals, giving Peering Coordinators a chance to talk about their network, what they look for in a peer, why others should want to peer with them, etc. as per http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0402/norton.html This has proven to be an effective way of pulling together the community of Peering Coordinators, hopefully resulting in more peering sessions. I think you will find this debate and the Peering BOF highly entertaining and maybe even educational ;-) Cheers - Bill PS - If you are a Peering Coordinator and would like to take part in the Peering Personals, I have a handful of slots left. Please fill out the form at the URL above and send it to wbn@umich.edu. Thanks!