[37202] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Charles Scott)
Mon May 7 12:56:45 2001
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 12:44:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Charles Scott <cscott@gaslightmedia.com>
To: Albert Meyer <albert@waller.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20010507110625.00dba8f0@mail.waller.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0105071228340.11327-100000@harbor.gaslightmedia.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Altert:
Pardon my ignorance on this issue, but I read C&W's receint peering
agreement and it seems they are simply trying to define what is a true
"peer". My question is, where is the traditional line that defines who
should be a "peer" and who should be a customer and shouldn't that be open
to re-evaluation as the network evolves. Is it that C&W has "rigged" their
peering agreement with specifics that would de-peer legitimate peers or
are they just trying to protect themselves from an evolutinary change.
Chuck
On Mon, 7 May 2001, Albert Meyer wrote:
>
> Didn't UUNet try this back in 96? A quick search of Boardwatch failed to
> find the article, but ISTR that John Sidgemore eventually slunk back to the
> playground and agreed to play nice. If UUNet couldn't pull it off back
> then, I doubt that CW can now. Things have changed a lot in 5 years, but I
> would suspect that "Stealing the Internet" would now be harder rather than
> easier.
>
> At 01:31 PM 5/6/01 -0500, Joseph T. Klein wrote:
> >It seems to be worthy of note that AGIS and PSI tried to use the
> >"pay me don't peer" card before they deteriorated.
>
>
--
