[47696] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Effects of de-peering... (was RE: ratios)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (E.B. Dreger)
Fri May 10 10:05:25 2002
Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 14:04:57 +0000 (GMT)
From: "E.B. Dreger" <eddy+public+spam@noc.everquick.net>
To: James Smith <jsmith@PRESIDIO.com>
Cc: "'nanog@merit.edu'" <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <171DAAD54475984F8F41345A0945DF9CEFDCEB@hqexchange.presidio.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0205101358550.17247-100000@www.everquick.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
JS> Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 09:48:25 -0400
JS> From: James Smith
JS> I think we all assume that our provider "guarantees" us some
JS> sort of "total reachability". Near as I can figure, they do
JS> not. Therefore, you buy a pipe into their network based on
JS> percieved and actual connectivity and hope that the situation
JS> remains static at best. Does ANY provider give a
JS> "reachability" guarantee?
<iirc memory="bad">
Wasn't there a small russian ISP that had no access to _1_ during
the mid- or late-90s?
And didn't some ugly peering battles between 701 and 3561 back
when 3561 was MCI cause some { severely hampered | loss of }
connectivity between the two?
</iirc>
Help me out... I wasn't following routing and such very closely
back then. But it seems that none of this is new, just another
iteration of the same...
--
Eddy
Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division
Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita/(Inter)national
Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT)
From: A Trap <blacklist@brics.com>
To: blacklist@brics.com
Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature.
These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots.
Do NOT send mail to <blacklist@brics.com>, or you are likely to
be blocked.
