Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New UUNet Policy Offers No-charge Peering

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the good-way-to-change dept.

Sacrifice writes "For the last seven years, no new network has been able to peer with UUNet without paying for transit. This looks to change, as they now publicly offer, in clear, publicly stated terms, their requirements for bilateral (no tribute) peering! Genuity paved the way for this three months ago with the announcement of their own publicly stated peering requirements (Genuity had a difficult time years ago with achieving bilateral peering with UUNet, and was the last major network to manage it)." Update: 01/10 02:44 PM by J : TBTF has the one good explanation that I've seen.

3 of 50 comments (clear)

  1. Re:They can only afford it because... by Tackhead · · Score: 5
    >Because they're now sticking it to their wholesale customers, the ISP's who rely on their POPs.

    Good point - I've long suspected that uu.net isn't really interested in the business of POP-leasing. It'd explain a lot of things, not just the spam problem. (Moderators - mod the parent of this post up!)

    With the impending doom of PSINet, however, they may be able to jack up the rates high enough to make it profitable again. Goodness knows Worldcom's desperate enough for revenue.

    (OK, useful commentary over, now on to more kvetching about the dreck uu.net shovels into my mailbox every friggin' day...)

    If you're an ISP, consider finding alternate arrangements. More and more uu.net dialups are finding their way into routers' blocklists every day as individual admins give up on uu.net dialups as nothing but a spam source.

    I'm off to tweak Apache into displaying "If you're reading this, you're on a uu.net POP. Go tell your ISP to lease their POPs from someone a little more reputable" whenever a user comes in from 63.[wholebunchastuff]...

    Yeah, I know, uu.net probably leases the same POP to multiple ISPs and does authentication at the RADIUS server level, so you can't just say "63.foo.bar.baz is msn.com, 63.foo.bar.qux is earthlink.net".

    But dialsprint arguably had the same problem (I don't think they're exclusively Earthlink?), and went from 25000+ spams a day reported to Spamcop down to nearly nothing upon blocking port 25. Sure, it took six months of half the 'net bitching at them 24/7, but they finally relented, and the spamload dropped within 24 hours of implementation. Looks like all their spammers have since migrated to uu.net, who remain unresponsive after three years.

  2. More info by Garpenlov · · Score: 5

    There's a more detailed explanation of what this really means at http://www.interesting-people.org/200101/0015.html . (Stolen from the NANOG discussion today, the thread starts here: http://www.cctec.com/maillists/nanog/current/msg00 681.html).

    --
    --- Where's my X.400 protocol decoder?
  3. They can only afford it because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5

    Sure, UUNet is offering to do peering for free. Why? Because they're now sticking it to their wholesale customers, the ISP's who rely on their POPs. The free ISP's are tanking. Their only real competitor in quantity and quality, PSINet, is going under fast. Mark my words, they're going to stick it to the ISP's that rely on them; don't be surprised if you see the providers that count on UUNet start jacking their prices up, just to break even. I work for one of those ISP's... UUNet started ramping up their wholesale prices last month.