[28194] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Re: Peering Table Question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Shawn McMahon)
Wed Apr 19 18:43:13 2000
Message-Id: <200004192233.SAA21280@oa.eiv.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 18:33:43 EDT
From: Shawn McMahon <smcmahon@eiv.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Reply-To: smcmahon@eiv.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Unless, of course, the DoJ believes one is trying to be sneaky and get
around such concerns.
Say, because one made public statements insinuating it. :-)
On Wed, 19 Apr 2000, Randy Bush wrote:
> Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 15:19:43 -0700
> To: Alex Rubenstein <alex@nac.net>
> From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
> Subject: Re: Peering Table Question
>
>
> sometimes paid pseudo-peering is nice because, as the payee is really a
> customer, one does not have to be as formal about consistent application
> of peering qualifications as one does for true peering, when one has to
> presume that some day one will be explaining equitable treatment to the
> doj, ec, ...
