[38444] in North American Network Operators' Group
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