[38428] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: C&W Peering
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Vivien M.)
Mon Jun 4 20:15:56 2001
From: "Vivien M." <vivienm@dyndns.org>
To: "Christopher A. Woodfield" <rekoil@semihuman.com>,
"John Starta" <john@starta.org>
Cc: "Mike Hughes" <mike@smashing.net>,
"Sean Donelan" <sean@donelan.com>, <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 19:58:57 -0400
Message-ID: <NDBBKECCEHKIHGIMJECAGELICJAA.vivienm@dyndns.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <20010604195514.A29992@semihuman.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher A. Woodfield [mailto:rekoil@semihuman.com]
> Sent: June 4, 2001 7:55 PM
> To: John Starta
> Cc: Vivien M.; Mike Hughes; Sean Donelan; nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: Re: C&W Peering
>
> I don't think that this is going to be solved by C&W reversing
> themselves;
> I think PSI is going to have to get itself some transit, and quickly.
Is this the part where the people (eg: Exodus, AboveNet are the two I can
think of immediately) who were forced to get themselves some transit because
PSI wouldn't peer with them anymore go and laugh at the irony of C&W pulling
a PSI on PSI themselves?
Vivien
--
Vivien M.
vivienm@dyndns.org
Assistant System Administrator
Dynamic DNS Network Services
http://www.dyndns.org/
