On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Nick Hilliard <[email protected]> wrote:
> Pedro de Botelho Marcos wrote: > > The current approach for establishing > > agreements is cumbersome, typically requiring lengthy discussions. > > i'm not sure the available data supports this conclusion: > > > http://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_ > matter/berec/download/0/6574-2016-survey-of-internet- > carrier-intercon_0.pdf > > which notes: > > > Of the total analyzed agreements, 1,347 (0.07%) were formalized in > > written contracts. This is down from 0.49% in 2011. The remaining > > 1,934,166 (99.93%) were “handshake” agreements in which the parties > > agreed to informal or commonly understood terms without creating a > > written document. > > it's totally possible that the OP was not talking about "peering" as interconnection (entirely) but also 'customer interconnect' as interconnection. So... "I have 1gbps of traffic I need to send to elbonia-telcom (today) , and tomorrow maybe 3?" means provision a 10g link with 1g commit and burst at X cents/mbps... or whatever... and that works 'today'. Tomorrow you realized 'whoops, by 3gbps I really meant 13... err, now I need to provision a 100g link or add another 10g and LAG... which means 90day telco turnaround on link provisioning... -chris
