[28015] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: peering wars revisited? PSI vs Exodus
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Payne)
Tue Apr 4 18:30:34 2000
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 23:28:09 +0100
From: John Payne <john+nanog@flea.ibm.net>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20000404232809.I12002@noc.ibm.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <v0421010bb50f04f445db@[192.168.0.1]>; from cook@cookreport.com on Tue, Apr 04, 2000 at 12:15:24AM -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Tue, Apr 04, 2000 at 12:15:24AM -0400, Gordon Cook wrote:
> else. My default mode of operation has always been to keep the
> identity of the leaker CONFIDENTIAL. It is a subject of interest to
So publishing the leaked note verbatim doesn't strike you as possibly
disclosing the identity of the leaker to the company that had it leaked?
It seems to me that it would be trivia for exodus or any other company
to insert uniquely identifying phrases or misspellings, or whatever...
--
John Payne jcapayne@att.com
OpenNet Infrastructure Team, AT&T Global Network Services
Mailpt C2E, c/o IBM North Harbour, PO Box 41 Portsmouth, PO6 3AU
Tel - +44 (0)23 9256 1977, Fax - 23 9221 0543
