[18750] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: BBN Peering issues
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Goldstein_William@bns.att.com)
Sun Aug 16 16:43:50 1998
From: Goldstein_William@bns.att.com
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 16:25:31 -0400
TO: linneweh@concentric.net
CC: mark@exodus.net, nanog@merit.edu, shields@crosslink.net
--openmail-part-03c3007e-00000001
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; name="BDY.RTF"
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="BDY.RTF"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Please note that, by identifying "what is", I'm not equating it with
"what should be." =20
And don't knock the idea of promoting the janitor to NOC director. At
least the likelihood of the OpenView workstation going down due to
spilled Mountain Dew or leftover pizza crumbs would be reduced--which is=
more benefit than you would get, say, if the typical MBA were promoted
to the same position...
;-)
(speaking for myself, not for my employer)
Bill Goldstein
Senior Internet Specialist
AT&T
wgoldstein@att.com
TEL:(412)642-7288
----------
From: linneweh
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 1998 3:51 PM
To: Goldstein, William
Cc: linneweh; mark; shields; nanog
Subject: Re: BBN Peering issues
=20
Well that's all fine and dandy. however the internet has worked for
20 years
that
I have been asssociated with it, on the working principal that no one=
hassled or
encumbered peering charges and there were no board rooms or
stockholders
and that is why it worked, because people knew what they were doing.
=20
The admins and network engineers that do this daily for a living or
scientific
researcher that develope codes and methods to do it better made this
happen
and certainly not the latter and from my view it WORKED.
=20
Adding Joe Blow to the picture is like elevating A Janitor to
Director of
Network
Services and turning him/her loose in the NOC.
=20
Goldstein_William@bns.att.com wrote:
=20
> Thanks for the reality check. Whether the rest of us like it or
not,
> you're right.
>
> Bill Goldstein
> Senior Internet Specialist
> AT&T
> wgoldstein@att.com
> TEL:(412)642-7288
>
> ----------
> From: shields
> Sent: Sunday, August 16, 1998 3:59 AM
> To: mark
> Cc: shields; nanog
> Subject: Re: BBN Peering issues
>
> > fundamentally important that these ideals be extended to the
future
> of
> > the Internet, if it is to have a future. No company should
have the
> > right to force another to pay for connectivity simply because
the
> latter
> > has not been around since the beginning or they are not a
telco.
>
> BBN is answerable to their customers and shareholders and not to=
your
> or my ideals of how the Internet should work.
> --
> Shields, CrossLink.
> <<File: Re_ BBN Peering issues.TXT>>
>
>
>
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
--
=99=01=A2=044i1=E5=11=04
=20
<<File: Re_ BBN Peering issues.TXT>>
=20
--openmail-part-03c3007e-00000001--
