worries me; this is like announcing at the UN that you can only vote if you have nuclear weapons. Some will be needless encouraged to add complexity to their networks simply to be a "Tier 1".

I like that! Are the "Tier 1" providers going to create a BGP non-proliferation pact? I was wondering why AGIS, AT&T/BBNplanet, MCI, and Sprint suddenly all needed to have their peering policies reviewed by their lawyers at the same time. I have this sinking feeling things are getting worse with people trying to one-up each other. You can't be a "Tier 1" provider unless your router config is 30,000 lines long. Well, my router config is 40,000 lines long, so I'm even better. Perhaps the adage should be "Making a network complicated is simple, but making a network simple is complicated." Some providers "requirements" seem to just add complexity for the sake of complexity. Personally I find today's front-door peerings infinitely easier to maintain than some of the backdoor monsters we used to sneak around the AUP requirements. But if nasty looking router configs is what it takes to be a Tier 1 provider, I can make mine as grody looking as the next guy's. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation