[28010] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: peering wars revisited? PSI vs Exodus
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael Shields)
Tue Apr 4 17:57:05 2000
To: "Dustin Goodwin" <dustin@clickthings.com>
Cc: "Paul Ferguson" <ferguson@cisco.com>,
"Gordon Cook" <cook@cookreport.com>, <nanog@merit.edu>
From: Michael Shields <shields@msrl.com>
Date: 04 Apr 2000 21:46:27 +0000
In-Reply-To: "Dustin Goodwin"'s message of "Tue, 4 Apr 2000 09:33:29 -0400"
Message-ID: <873dp1h74c.fsf@challah.msrl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
In article <00c601bf9e3a$5d0d2ea0$0a8d473f@redconnect.net>,
"Dustin Goodwin" <dustin@clickthings.com> wrote:
> Of course the one piece of information (peering status and utilization) that
> would be good indicator of capacity of a ISP is always held as confidential.
That is not universally true.
> Thank god people work around the rules to let customers and perspective
> customers know the truth about peering status. Personally I am ready for
> government to step in and force public reporting of peering capacity and
> utilization.
Is there precedent for such things in other industries? There are
many, many examples of organizations that perform tests on the
finished products and services an industry produces without any
mandated oversight of how they are made. Currently there is a lack of
quality Internet service testing and reporting organizations, but that
will not necessarily always be the case.
--
Shields.
