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: > >> --- a...@latency.net wrote: >> From: Adam Rothschild <a...@latency.net> >> >> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 7:39 PM, Scott Weeks <sur...@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 >> >
