Agreed. We've been struggling to come up with a better term. CDN Peering
doesn't imply settlement free, in fact, the norm is quite the opposite.
This could make for a good discussion in the BoF.
Gary
-----Original Message-----
From: hardie@equinix.com [mailto:hardie@equinix.com]
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 9:01 AM
To: garyt@entera.com
Cc: paf@cisco.com; W.Sylwestrzak@icm.edu.pl; jason@dstc.edu.au;
lidan@cisco.com; wrec@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: Candidate re-charter/new WG
> I don't see mirrors being something CDNP is likely to work on. CDNP is
> focused on the peering (interconnection) of CDNs,
I am a little uneasy with our use of the term "peering", because I
think we run the risk of implying something about settlements we don't
mean. There is a big chunk of the BGP crowd that still thinks of
peering as meaning "traffic exchange without settlement". I think we
want to talk about CDN traffic exchange and interworking, but I don't
think we want to imply "without settlement".
I don't want to start a big "rethink the name" effort, but I think it
may be something that we should cover early in the BOF, just to
eliminate any peering vs. transit discussions.
regards,
Ted
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 11:21:29 MST