|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
To: nanog@merit.edu From: Paul Vixie <vixie@mfnx.net> Date: 07 May 2001 23:19:27 -0700 In-Reply-To: peter@dataloss.nl's message of "7 May 2001 16:22:23 -0700" Message-ID: <g3wv7se51s.fsf@redpaul.mfnx.net> Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu peter@dataloss.nl (Peter van Dijk) writes: > I do still think UUnet is in a downward spiral, just like C&W. Strong > peering policies are not good for the Internet. Well, before I returned to PAIX, I was CTO of MFN. MFN had bought Abovenet, and I learnt to respect strong peering policies. Abovenet's peering policy was, and as far as I know still is, very "strong". It's strongly _open_, which means it's different from the purported C&W policy being discussed here this week. But while different it is still "strong". I think what you were looking to say above is that "*closed* peering policies are not good for the Internet." Probably noone will *publically* disagree with such sentiments. Not on nanog, anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |