|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 16:21:25 -0400 From: Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> To: Phil Rosenthal <pr@isprime.com> Cc: nanog@merit.edu In-Reply-To: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAA/zNkI7d3EEmn3+v5DgN/l8KAAAAQAAAAscpMchuGDU6H+JSAerpvjgEAAAAA@isprime.com> Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 04:13:42PM -0400, Phil Rosenthal wrote: > > That's my definition of "Tier 1", in case you hadn't guessed. Then what are you "venturing to guess"? > You are saying that Wcom doesn't peer enough to remain financially > viable? I don't think Worldcom's peering has anything to do with their financial stability, actually. Their absolutily pitiful integration of all the companies they bought is far more important. > eg, verio has "a lot" of peering in NYC, Virginia, and Chicago. 50% of > my traffic to them gets dumped off in NYC or Newark (close), 25% in > virginia, 25% in chicago. > I avoid the chicago and virginia peers as much as possible. To "get it off their network", yes UU doesn't have to carry it very far. As for where it actually goes, thats their peers' problem. :) -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |