[44547] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: a question about the economics of peering
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alex Rubenstein)
Fri Nov 30 22:40:36 2001
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 22:39:57 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
From: Alex Rubenstein <alex@nac.net>
To: Nigel Titley <nigel@titley.com>
Cc: "nanog@merit.edu" <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <3C080520.F7EBCE25@titley.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.43.0111302236020.1468-100000@NEON.hq.nac.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Nigel, Nanog:
The original intent of the inquiry was not to bring into question the
intelligence of Nigel; I can't speak to that since I don't know him, nor
did I even know of him. My communication also does not speak to the
potential success of PacketExchange.
My question was simply a curiosity ping of _why_ people peer with each
other; in my mind, it had always, and never not, been a way to reduce cost
of traffic sent/rec'd. I was curious as to whether or not others had a
similar view to mine.
On Fri, 30 Nov 2001, Nigel Titley wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I'm stood to one side up to now, but now this thread is drifting over to
> personal abuse.
>
> I was the engineer in question, and I was most certainly not trying to
> hoodwink or bamboozle. Neither am I an ignorant sales-droid, as someone
> else has said. Those of you who know me, as I think that a fair number
> of people on this list do, will vouch for my honesty, and my pedigree in
> the industry.
>
> I think Alex misunderstood what I was trying to say, and since we were
> shouting at each other down a very bad phone line with a loudspeaking
> phone at either end, he's got a certain amount of excuse.
-- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, alex@nac.net, latency, Al Reuben --
-- Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net --
