Rodney Joffe is being optimistic; the fact is that a network that exceeds the minimum requirements UUNET has published yet which has zero customers, is simply not going to get a no-settlement peering agreement with UUNET. "Zero" here is a relative term. Sean. | >If I understand the document correctly, anyone who meets their clear | >requirements will be able to exchange traffic with them at no charge. [...] | >Rodney Joffe | >CenterGate Research Group, LLC.
smd@clock.org wrote:
Rodney Joffe is being optimistic; the fact is that a network that exceeds the minimum requirements UUNET has published yet which has zero customers, is simply not going to get a no-settlement peering agreement with UUNET. "Zero" here is a relative term.
Sean.
| >If I understand the document correctly, anyone who meets their clear | >requirements will be able to exchange traffic with them at no charge. [...] | >Rodney Joffe | >CenterGate Research Group, LLC.
I believe that if you examine the UUNet requirements, it states: First: 1.2 Traffic Exchange Ratio. The ratio of the aggregate amount of traffic exchanged between the Requester and the WorldCom Internet Network with which it seeks to interconnect shall be roughly balanced and shall not exceed 1.5:1. and second: 1.4 Traffic Volume. The aggregate amount of traffic exchanged in each direction over all interconnection links between the Requester and the WorldCom Internet Network with which it desires to interconnect shall equal or exceed 150 Mbps of traffic for WorldCom-US, 30 Mbps of traffic for WorldCom-Europe, and 5 Mbps of traffic for WorldCom-ASPAC While it is theoretically possible that this could be achieved with no customers (e.g. CNN, or Yahoo), I think it is highly unlikely that both parts of the equation would hold up. What would a publisher possibly be a receiver of that would equate to 100mbs in the US? And if they did, why would they have local access points in 15 states? Or am I missing something Sean? -- Rodney Joffe CenterGate Research Group, LLC. http://www.centergate.com "Technology so advanced, even we don't understand it!"(SM)
Theres been a bit of an update, see a link on www.slashdot.org. Bri On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Rodney Joffe wrote:
smd@clock.org wrote:
Rodney Joffe is being optimistic; the fact is that a network that exceeds the minimum requirements UUNET has published yet which has zero customers, is simply not going to get a no-settlement peering agreement with UUNET. "Zero" here is a relative term.
Sean.
| >If I understand the document correctly, anyone who meets their clear | >requirements will be able to exchange traffic with them at no charge. [...] | >Rodney Joffe | >CenterGate Research Group, LLC.
I believe that if you examine the UUNet requirements, it states:
First: 1.2 Traffic Exchange Ratio. The ratio of the aggregate amount of traffic exchanged between the Requester and the WorldCom Internet Network with which it seeks to interconnect shall be roughly balanced and shall not exceed 1.5:1. and second: 1.4 Traffic Volume. The aggregate amount of traffic exchanged in each direction over all interconnection links between the Requester and the WorldCom Internet Network with which it desires to interconnect shall equal or exceed 150 Mbps of traffic for WorldCom-US, 30 Mbps of traffic for WorldCom-Europe, and 5 Mbps of traffic for WorldCom-ASPAC
While it is theoretically possible that this could be achieved with no customers (e.g. CNN, or Yahoo), I think it is highly unlikely that both parts of the equation would hold up. What would a publisher possibly be a receiver of that would equate to 100mbs in the US? And if they did, why would they have local access points in 15 states?
Or am I missing something Sean?
-- Rodney Joffe CenterGate Research Group, LLC. http://www.centergate.com "Technology so advanced, even we don't understand it!"(SM)
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 04:50:39PM -0800, Brian W. wrote:
Theres been a bit of an update, see a link on www.slashdot.org.
Or not. Here are a few notable quotes, for people too busy to read the entire thread: "Wonderful- they're letting people 'peer' into their network. This will obviously just become another option for script kiddies to exploit. Us sysadmins go through years of training to SECURE systems, and now they go and let people peer into them. I bet they let people take files, too. Just like those piracy programs, but worse. Doesn't the thought of someone peering at your hard drive make anyone else nervous?" "Last I checked, AOL *only* 'peers' at MAE East, and refuses to private-peer with anyone, with the possible exception of Exodus. So I doubt they'd wanna play ball with UUNet anyway [...]" Heh. Further proof that Slashdot is (with a few exceptions, of course) an excellent example of the blind leading the blind. ;) -adam
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Adam Rothschild wrote:
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 04:50:39PM -0800, Brian W. wrote:
Theres been a bit of an update, see a link on www.slashdot.org.
Or not. Here are a few notable quotes, for people too busy to read the entire thread:
"Wonderful- they're letting people 'peer' into their network. This will obviously just become another option for script kiddies to exploit. Us sysadmins go through years of training to SECURE systems, and now they go and let people peer into them. I bet they let people take files, too. Just like those piracy programs, but worse. Doesn't the thought of someone peering at your hard drive make anyone else nervous?"
"Last I checked, AOL *only* 'peers' at MAE East, and refuses to private-peer with anyone, with the possible exception of Exodus. So I doubt they'd wanna play ball with UUNet anyway [...]"
Heh. Further proof that Slashdot is (with a few exceptions, of course) an excellent example of the blind leading the blind. ;)
-adam
Those didn't even rate a flame they are so clueless. Just a note folks: If you're going to quote a slashdot response, pick one, find the specific URL to that response and post that. I found NOTHING (as usual) in the form of INFORMED response in the thread. If someone did, I'm obviously not looking at the right anonymous coward posting. --- John Fraizer EnterZone, Inc
participants (5)
-
Adam Rothschild -
Brian W. -
John Fraizer -
Rodney Joffe -
smd＠clock.org