Re: L3 announces new peering policy
--- asr@latency.net wrote: From: Adam Rothschild <asr@latency.net> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 7:39 PM, Scott Weeks <surfer@mauigateway.com> wrote:
Isn't it just more of the same, or am I brainnumb today?
What's changed is the introduction of "bit miles" as a means of calculating equality, where traffic ratios might previously have been used. Explained further, as pointed out on-list earlier: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021703819 http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021703818 What will be interesting is whether new peering adjacencies crop up as a result of the new policy (I can think of several "smaller" global networks which now qualify, as it's written), or if this is just posturing on Level 3's part. The next few months will be interesting for sure... ---------------------------------------------------- I do recall the bit-miles conversations, but didn't tie that into this. doh! Thanks for the links. That kind of detail is what I should've been looking for and it explains everything. scott
Note the distinction in the new peering relationship requirement -- only direct adjacencies with other transit-providing ASes count. ...or did that change happen some time ago and I'm just noticing it now (?) TV On Oct 13, 2011, at 2:13 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
--- asr@latency.net wrote: From: Adam Rothschild <asr@latency.net>
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 7:39 PM, Scott Weeks <surfer@mauigateway.com> wrote:
Isn't it just more of the same, or am I brainnumb today?
What's changed is the introduction of "bit miles" as a means of calculating equality, where traffic ratios might previously have been used. Explained further, as pointed out on-list earlier:
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021703819 http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021703818
What will be interesting is whether new peering adjacencies crop up as a result of the new policy (I can think of several "smaller" global networks which now qualify, as it's written), or if this is just posturing on Level 3's part. The next few months will be interesting for sure... ----------------------------------------------------
I do recall the bit-miles conversations, but didn't tie that into this. doh! Thanks for the links. That kind of detail is what I should've been looking for and it explains everything.
scott
On Oct 13, 2011, at 2:19 PM, Tom Vest wrote:
Note the distinction in the new peering relationship requirement -- only direct adjacencies with other transit-providing ASes count.
...or did that change happen some time ago and I'm just noticing it now (?)
It is new. I'm unclear how that has anything to do with what they need as a business other than to carve out potential customers from the pool. Actually, we are all very clear.... -- TTFN, patrick
On Oct 13, 2011, at 2:13 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
--- asr@latency.net wrote: From: Adam Rothschild <asr@latency.net>
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 7:39 PM, Scott Weeks <surfer@mauigateway.com> wrote:
Isn't it just more of the same, or am I brainnumb today?
What's changed is the introduction of "bit miles" as a means of calculating equality, where traffic ratios might previously have been used. Explained further, as pointed out on-list earlier:
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021703819 http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021703818
What will be interesting is whether new peering adjacencies crop up as a result of the new policy (I can think of several "smaller" global networks which now qualify, as it's written), or if this is just posturing on Level 3's part. The next few months will be interesting for sure... ----------------------------------------------------
I do recall the bit-miles conversations, but didn't tie that into this. doh! Thanks for the links. That kind of detail is what I should've been looking for and it explains everything.
scott
participants (3)
-
Patrick W. Gilmore -
Scott Weeks -
Tom Vest