[28001] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: peering wars revisited? PSI vs Exodus
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Borchers)
Tue Apr 4 15:04:29 2000
Message-Id: <200004041901.PAA00266@ns2.harpweek.com>
From: "Mark Borchers" <markb@infi.net>
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, nanog@merit.edu
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 13:59:43 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
In-reply-to: <200004040434.e344Yap20414@black-ice.cc.vt.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On 4 Apr 00, at 0:34, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> If it's merely "PSI refuses to peer directly with Exodus", that's one
> thing. If PSI is also refusing packets carried by some other 3rd party
> that PSI and Exodus both peer with, or alternate routing is failing
> for some other reason, that's a lot worse.
>
> Does anybody know definitively what the REAL story is?
>
> Valdis Kletnieks
> Operating Systems Analyst
> Virginia Tech
>
Here's a non-confidential document which may be relevant:
http://www.psinet.com/carrier-isp/transitandpeering.html
Note the cost-sharing arrangement built into this peering policy.
Maybe this is somehow related to the parting of ways between PSI
and Exodus.
