nanog mailing list archives
Re: Agenda for next NANOG
From: John Hawkinson <jhawk () bbnplanet com>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 00:33:53 -0400 (EDT)
Actually, the traditional point2point link between any two ISPs is a private interconnect. It does not have to be a provider/subscriber relationship.
True, but let's look at the goal and not at the implementation. If customers actively requested that their providers make available interconnect statistics, and made such statistics a contractual requirement, perhaps this would happen more often. Of course, merely saying that is not quite so simple, since there are folks who have made (or claimed to have made) such requests in the past. Nevertheless, the current economic model does not expressly prohibit this kind of thing. --jhawk - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- Re: Agenda for next NANOG Guy T Almes (Sep 03)
- Re: Agenda for next NANOG Randy Bush (Sep 03)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Agenda for next NANOG Guy T Almes (Sep 03)
- Re: Agenda for next NANOG Sean Doran (Sep 03)
- Re: Agenda for next NANOG John Hawkinson (Sep 03)
- Re: Agenda for next NANOG Curtis Villamizar (Sep 03)
- RE: Agenda for next NANOG Peter Ford (Sep 03)
- Re: Agenda for next NANOG bmanning (Sep 03)
- Re: Agenda for next NANOG John Hawkinson (Sep 03)
- Re: Agenda for next NANOG Avi Freedman (Sep 04)
- Re: Agenda for next NANOG bmanning (Sep 03)
- Re: Agenda for next NANOG Craig Labovitz (Sep 04)
- Re: Agenda for next NANOG Curtis Villamizar (Sep 04)
- Re: Agenda for next NANOG Brett D. Watson (Sep 05)