[38440] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: C&W Peering
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (James Thomason)
Mon Jun 4 23:48:58 2001
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 20:42:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: James Thomason <james@divide.org>
To: "Vivien M." <vivienm@dyndns.org>
Cc: "Christopher A. Woodfield" <rekoil@semihuman.com>,
John Starta <john@starta.org>, Mike Hughes <mike@smashing.net>,
Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <NDBBKECCEHKIHGIMJECAGELICJAA.vivienm@dyndns.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0106042039550.15623-100000@www1>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
No, this is the part where I laugh at all of the people who told me this
how wonderfully effecient Inter-provider settlement and 95th percentile
billing are in the Internet today.
Regards,
James
On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, Vivien M. wrote:
>
> > -----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/
>
>
