Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!panix!MIX!Blackbird From: billy@MIX.COM Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system Subject: Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 23:17:10 +0000 (UTC) Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Lines: 32 Message-ID: References: <110520141938313439%timstreater@greenbee.net> <110520142013027741%timstreater@greenbee.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: panix5.panix.com X-Trace: reader2.panix.com 1399850230 1123 166.84.1.5 (11 May 2014 23:17:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 23:17:10 +0000 (UTC) Xref: csiph.com comp.sys.mac.system:59296 Tim Streater writes: > If they are limited to the USA, either they don't need global > connectivity, in which case why are they peering with level3 I don't know if they're global vendors, but if they have enough customers that other vendors want to reach, sometimes settlement settlement free peering can be negotiated. "Settlement free" does not (that I know of, anyway) allow transit traffic. A couple examples - http://www.comcast.com/peering | traffic to/from the Comcast network must be on-net only http://www.level3.com/en/legal/ip-traffic-exchange-policy/ | must announce only routes for paid traffic exchanged with its | customers (and Level 3 and Global Crossing will announce only | routes for paid traffic exchanged with their customers) > So what is going on? Usually net vendors are extremely quiet about all this. I'm surprised L3 disclosed as much as they did. It was probably from frustration. I suspect some of L3's customers are not happy. Billy Y.. -- sub #'9+1 ,r0 ; convert ascii byte add #9.+1 ,r0 ; to an integer bcc 20$ ; not a number