[38444] in North American Network Operators' Group

home help back first fref pref prev next nref lref last post

Re: C&W Peering (and nTH Percentile Unite!)

daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (James Thomason)
Tue Jun 5 02:01:54 2001

Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 22:51:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: James Thomason <james@divide.org>
To: "Christopher A. Woodfield" <rekoil@semihuman.com>
Cc: "Vivien M." <vivienm@dyndns.org>, John Starta <john@starta.org>,
	Mike Hughes <mike@smashing.net>, Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>,
	nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <20010605004927.B29992@semihuman.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0106042234300.20900-100000@www1>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu


On Tue, 5 Jun 2001, Christopher A. Woodfield wrote:

> Could you explain how the PSI/C&W peering fracas has /anything/ to do with 
> Nth percentile billing?

Sure, allow me to connect the dots. 

1.  The existence of common "peering" relationships can be attributed to
    the lack of any standard basis for a transaction in the Internet
    environment. 


2.  The existence of nTH percentile billing can be attributed to the lack
    of any standard basis for a transaction in the Internet environment. 


Therefore: 

1.  The PSI/CW scenario is a relfection of an inequitable
    relationship. Stand in awe of the effeciency. 

2.  nTH percentile billing is a reflection of a hierarchy of inequitable
    relationships. 


At least, thats my opinion. 

Regards, 
James




home help back first fref pref prev next nref lref last post