[38455] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: PSINet and C&W peering
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Neil J. McRae)
Tue Jun 5 11:41:06 2001
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0106051118180.26997-100000@Overkill.EnterZone.Net> from John Fraizer at "Jun 5, 2001 11:25:05 am"
To: nanog@Overkill.EnterZone.Net (John Fraizer)
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 16:47:30 +0100 (BST)
Cc: levinn@psi.com (Mitchell Levinn), nanog@merit.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <20010605154731.3D6741A97@equinox.DOMINO.ORG>
From: neil@DOMINO.ORG (Neil J. McRae)
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> That's a couple of hundred megabytes of
> flow that they can no longer bill to those customers. I'd ALWAYS rather
> have my customers use our network for transit than have them peer directly
> with my peers and bypass the toll booth.
What an ideal carrot to ensure that we operators plan our networks
well, if we do - we keep our customers. If we don't our customers find
alternative means to provide what we are supposed too, and
one way or another thats going to cost you.
Personally speaking, I'm a little worred that this isn't the last
C+W peering issue that we will hear about in the near future, unless
of the new flows of customers abandoning them changes a few minds
at corporate HQ, I've certainly heard from a large European C+W customer
who is now seriously thinking about finding alternatives because of
this action.
Also, I couldn't recommend buying connectivity from any organisation who
randomly disconnects people without consultation/communication to their
customer base, and operates draconian and stupid peering policies.
Regards,
Neil.
