On 20 Oct 2004, at 18:27, Alastair Johnson wrote:
TCL has informed me that they will not peer with MCI NZ after they decomission their APE/WIX peering, as they are not a "Tier 1 carrier".
It seems that TCL think that in order to peer with them, you need to operate a national IP network (MCI is only in Auckland -- coincidentally, in TCL's colocation facility), on your OWN NATIONAL FIBER network.
It's not unusual for global tier-1 carriers to find them relegated to the bottom of the stack when they deploy service in regional markets, and it's really not stretching the odious phrase "tier-1" in new and exciting ways to suggest that MCI are not tier-1 in New Zealand, just as TCL is not tier-1 anywhere outside New Zealand.
They also said that "MCI won't peer with us in the US, so we won't peer with them here".
If you look beyond the mirth engendered by that quote given the networks' respective sizes (and the fact that, as you noticed, TCL is a customer of MCI), both MCI and TCL are really making the same point: MCI's peering requirements are nominally about deployed infrastructure across each of their three regions; TCL's peering requirements are about deployed infrastructure within New Zealand. It does make sense, kind of. If you turn your head sideways and squint a bit. Joe