[37203] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Peter van Dijk)
Mon May 7 13:01:38 2001
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 18:45:13 +0200
From: Peter van Dijk <peter@dataloss.nl>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20010507184513.A73748@dataloss.nl>
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@merit.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <g3zocpdsjt.fsf@redpaul.mfnx.net>; from vixie@mfnx.net on Mon, May 07, 2001 at 09:37:10AM -0700
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 09:37:10AM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
> albert@waller.net (Albert Meyer) writes:
>
> > 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. ...
>
> I am completely fascinated by your assessment (that UUNet didn't pull it off).
It is rare, but I agree with Paul here :)
Unet is, for example, one of the few (if not the only) ISP in The
Netherlands that charges for *peering* (no, not transit, just peering).
More and more clued people I know are avoiding UUnet because they
don't peer with the small but quickly growing ISPs. Most UUnet
customers are getting worse and worse connectivity as other ISPs stop
peering with UUnet, because UUnet is becoming less and less important.
A nice downward spiral.
Greetz, Peter.
