Subject: RE: [Speermint] RE: Background Reading on NGN Interconnect - transitvs peering

From: "Reinaldo Penno" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 13:01:43 -0400

Okay, so when coming up with these terms we cannot forget about media.
So, when somebody provides "peering" and/or "transit" services, we need
to specify in the context of speermint if that means:

a) all IP packets (which includes media)
b) only signaling
...

Well, you get the idea...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Otmar Lendl [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 8:44 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Speermint] RE: Background Reading on NGN Interconnect -
> transitvs peering
> 
> On 2006/04/06 17:04, Richard Shockey <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > Stastny Richard wrote:
> > >The problem I have with the FCC definition is that
> > >is states that peering is always bi-lateral
> > >
> > >The major reason for setting up SPEERMINT was that
> > >everybody seems at least to agree that bi-lateral
> > >peering does not scale globally.
> >
> > All peering arrangements among IP backbones are bi-lateral and the
> Internet
> > seems to have scaled reasonably well.
> 
> The reason for that is "transit". It is thus not necessary that
> any Autonomous Systems peers with all other AS.
> 
> I think we should define the difference between "Peering" and
> "Interconnection" (which in my mind also allows for transit).
> 
> Bi-lateral peering alone will definitly not solve the world-wide
> reachability problem.
> 
> /ol
> --
> < Otmar Lendl ([email-masked]) | nic.at Systems Engineer >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speermint mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint

_______________________________________________
Speermint mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint