[33514] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Peering Disputes
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sean Donelan)
Sun Jan 14 02:41:33 2001
Date: 13 Jan 2001 23:35:45 -0800
Message-ID: <20010114073545.2931.cpmta@c004.sfo.cp.net>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: nanog@merit.edu
From: Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Sat, 13 January 2001, marcellus@bbo.com wrote:
> I liked your run down on Peering disputes. However, I know there are alot of
> us out there who have been involved in many other rather nasty ones.
I understand there have been a less public disputes between providers. My
list covered the "public" ones. I know my list is a bit one-sided. Whether
folks believe it or not, even I respect NDAs. One weird thing about NDA
is they sometimes keep me from talking about the good things providers do,
as well as the bad things. There are providers I think handle peering
very well, whether or not they peered with me. I expect the same is true
of other people involved in peering. So we're always going to hear a
one-sided story.
I don't know if enough time has passed, but I hope at some point in time
a researcher can get folks from the first peering battle on the same panel
and document what happened directly from the source. Imagine Allan Weis (ANS),
Rick Adams (UUNET), Stephen Wolff (NSF), Marty Schoffstall (PSI) and
John Curran (BBN) on a panel discussing what they thought really happened.
Its not really a NANOG topic, but maybe Harvard, CNI or one of the other
think tank institutions.
