[47699] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Effects of de-peering... (was RE: ratios)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (E.B. Dreger)
Fri May 10 10:38:43 2002
Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 14:38:13 +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: <171DAAD54475984F8F41345A0945DF9CEFDD21@hqexchange.presidio.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0205101434210.17926-100000@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 10:26:13 -0400
JS> From: James Smith
JS> > Hmmmm.... maybe there should be a "list of peering
JS> > policies" site a la Jared's NOC page.
JS> Interesting idea. Include verifiable user comments as to what
JS> the policy actually is as exemplified by actual practice
JS> vs. what they say it is (or should be)...
...which would be interesting, except NDAs[1] and grandfathered-
in ASNs that don't meet the requirements, yet haven't been
depeered, might make things interesting...
[1] IANAL, but how can something public be considered a trade
secret protected by NDA? Perhaps the exact peering
arrangements are not public, but routing information is at
least semi-public. (Any downstream can identify peers. Or
if a net participates in a route server a la oregon-ix, then
they're pretty much disclosing interconnect lists.)
--
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.
