So many marks on the list...<div><br></div><div>Anyway... Perhaps greater cooperation amongst providers in AU would be able to breach the Reach (har har) and achieve the sort of pricing that you see on trans-atlantic (transit basically) links:: <a href="http://www.hiberniaatlantic.com/documents/ProjectKelvin-PricingMarch20111_000.pdf">http://www.hiberniaatlantic.com/documents/ProjectKelvin-PricingMarch20111_000.pdf</a></div>
<div><br></div><div>Seans Idea of pumping all the traffic overseas for a week to pwn the Go4 is a great idea, what would be better is the establishment of a "not-for-profit" consortium that got together to bully the Go4 into submission. The best thing about it is even the dedicated server providers that have them used by gamers won't be bearing much of a brunt as it will be T$lstra who has to explain why latency to next door neighbour on iiNet is being routed via SJ while iiNet customer enjoys low latency to 90% of providers who do choose to peer. Or at least that would be the idea (trollface), maybe someone experienced could think of the actual ramifications and possibilities..<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Mark Smith <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au" target="_blank">markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
The thing that makes me think T/O/A wouldn't meet that is the "facilities capable of terminating IP customer leased line connections" part - I think facilities is general enough of a word that it starts to imply at least a local sales office, local telco license, have a registered business and submit tax returns, ability to do LI etc. So O/T and maybe A might meet the presence requirement by having a router in a rack, would they be "established" enough in those countries for Verizon to consider them a "regional peer" (in the peer=equal) sense.<br>
<br>
Assuming Verizon are willing to overlook their own geographical requirements, the question is whether they're currently benefiting from or being disadvantaged by their "GoF" membership. If they're being disadvantaged enough, they'd probably also be advocates for breaking it up.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
----- Original Message -----<br>
> From: Mark Prior <<a href="mailto:mrp@mrp.net">mrp@mrp.net</a>><br>
> To: Mark Smith <<a href="mailto:markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au">markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au</a>><br>
> Cc: Matthew Moyle-Croft <<a href="mailto:mmc@mmc.com.au">mmc@mmc.com.au</a>>; Chris Ricks <<a href="mailto:chris.ricks@securepay.com.au">chris.ricks@securepay.com.au</a>>; "<a href="mailto:ausnog@lists.ausnog.net">ausnog@lists.ausnog.net</a>" <<a href="mailto:ausnog@lists.ausnog.net">ausnog@lists.ausnog.net</a>><br>
</div><div class="im">> Sent: Monday, 12 November 2012 7:18 PM<br>
> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Domestic Peering WAS: Vocus peering traffic missingfrom PIPE-IX?<br>
><br>
</div>>T he policy document seems pretty clear to me that there are general<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">> operational requirements (sections 2 & 3) and requirements specific to<br>
> the region/country (section 1).<br>
><br>
> Mark.<br>
><br>
> On 12/11/12 6:36 PM, Mark Smith wrote:<br>
>> Yeah, I know, used to work for them when they were called UUNet/Worldcom. <br>
> That policy reads like it applies to all of 701, 702 and 703.<br>
>><br>
>>> ________________________________<br>
>>> From: Mark Prior <<a href="mailto:mrp@mrp.net">mrp@mrp.net</a>><br>
>>> To: Mark Smith <<a href="mailto:markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au">markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au</a>><br>
>>> Cc: Matthew Moyle-Croft <<a href="mailto:mmc@mmc.com.au">mmc@mmc.com.au</a>>; Chris Ricks<br>
> <<a href="mailto:chris.ricks@securepay.com.au">chris.ricks@securepay.com.au</a>>; "<a href="mailto:ausnog@lists.ausnog.net">ausnog@lists.ausnog.net</a>"<br>
> <<a href="mailto:ausnog@lists.ausnog.net">ausnog@lists.ausnog.net</a>><br>
>>> Sent: Monday, 12 November 2012 6:04 PM<br>
>>> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Domestic Peering WAS: Vocus peering traffic<br>
> missingfrom PIPE-IX?<br>
>>><br>
>>> AS703 = Verizon Asia Pacific<br>
>>><br>
>>> Mark.<br>
>>><br>
>>> On 12/11/12 4:47 PM, Mark Smith wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----<br>
>>>>> From: Matthew Moyle-Croft <<a href="mailto:mmc@mmc.com.au">mmc@mmc.com.au</a>><br>
>>>>> To: Chris Ricks <<a href="mailto:chris.ricks@securepay.com.au">chris.ricks@securepay.com.au</a>><br>
>>>>> Cc: <a href="mailto:ausnog@lists.ausnog.net">ausnog@lists.ausnog.net</a><br>
>>>>> Sent: Monday, 12 November 2012 3:32 PM<br>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Domestic Peering WAS: Vocus peering<br>
> traffic missingfrom PIPE-IX?<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> On 11/11/2012, at 8:29 PM, Chris Ricks<br>
> <<a href="mailto:chris.ricks@securepay.com.au">chris.ricks@securepay.com.au</a>><br>
>>>>> wrote:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>>> There's been on list discussion stating that if the<br>
> other 3 members of<br>
>>>>>> the GoF were evaluated using Verizon's published<br>
> policy, they<br>
>>>>> wouldn't<br>
>>>>>> get to keep the current arrangement - do you have an<br>
> opinion on that<br>
>>>>>> either way?<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> I'd suggest that untrue. All would meet AS703s<br>
> requirements.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> I wouldn't have thought Telstra, Optus or AAPT can meet the<br>
> following -<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Geographic Scope. The Requester shall operate facilities capable of<br>
> terminating IP customer leased line connections onto a device in at least 50% of<br>
> the geographic region in which the Verizon Business Internet Network with which<br>
> it desires to interconnect operates such facilities. This currently equates to<br>
> 25 states in the United States, 9 countries in Europe, or 3 countries in the<br>
> Asia-Pacific region. The Requester also must have a geographically-dispersed<br>
> network. In the United States, at a minimum, the Requester must have a backbone<br>
> node in each of the following eight geographic regions: Northeast; Mid-Atlantic;<br>
> Southeast; North Central; South Central; Northwest; Mid-Pacific; and Southwest.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Obviously Verizon can choose to break their own rules if it<br>
> benefits them.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>>> MMC<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> On 12/11/12 15:13, Mark Prior wrote:<br>
>>>>>>> On 12/11/12 12:25 PM, Chris Ricks wrote:<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>> Even if a merger of M2, iiNet and TPG occurred,<br>
> their traffic<br>
>>>>> volume<br>
>>>>>>>> would not put them in a position to discuss<br>
> settlement-free or SKA<br>
>>>>>>>> peering with any of the GoF without government<br>
> intervention - that<br>
>>>>> is<br>
>>>>>>>> the crux of the issue here.<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> I wouldn't put Verizon in the same box as the<br>
> other three. They<br>
>>>>> have a<br>
>>>>>>> written peering policy and if you satisfy the<br>
> policy via a test<br>
>>>>>>> peering then you get to keep it.<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> AAPT had a policy (I wrote the first version :-)<br>
> but it's a moving<br>
>>>>>>> target, at least it was when I last tried to use it<br>
> to get peering.<br>
>>>>>>> Telstra's peering policy is mission impossible<br>
> and Optus can't<br>
>>>>> spell<br>
>>>>>>> peering.<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> Mark.<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>>>> AusNOG mailing list<br>
>>>>>> <a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a><br>
>>>>>> <a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog" target="_blank">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>>> AusNOG mailing list<br>
>>>>> <a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a><br>
>>>>> <a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog" target="_blank">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>> AusNOG mailing list<br>
>>>> <a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a><br>
>>>> <a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog" target="_blank">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
AusNOG mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog" target="_blank">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>