nanog mailing list archives
RE: BBN Peering issues
From: Goldstein_William () bns att com
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 16:25:31 -0400
Please note that, by identifying "what is", I'm not equating it with "what should be." And don't knock the idea of promoting the janitor to NOC director. At least the likelihood of the OpenView workstation going down due to spilled Mountain Dew or leftover pizza crumbs would be reduced--which is more benefit than you would get, say, if the typical MBA were promoted to the same position... ;-) (speaking for myself, not for my employer) Bill Goldstein Senior Internet Specialist AT&T wgoldstein () att com TEL:(412)642-7288 ---------- From: linneweh Sent: Sunday, August 16, 1998 3:51 PM To: Goldstein, William Cc: linneweh; mark; shields; nanog Subject: Re: BBN Peering issues Well that's all fine and dandy. however the internet has worked for 20 years that I have been asssociated with it, on the working principal that no one hassled or encumbered peering charges and there were no board rooms or stockholders and that is why it worked, because people knew what they were doing. The admins and network engineers that do this daily for a living or scientific researcher that develope codes and methods to do it better made this happen and certainly not the latter and from my view it WORKED. Adding Joe Blow to the picture is like elevating A Janitor to Director of Network Services and turning him/her loose in the NOC. Goldstein_William () bns att com wrote: > Thanks for the reality check. Whether the rest of us like it or not, > you're right. > > Bill Goldstein > Senior Internet Specialist > AT&T > wgoldstein () att com > TEL:(412)642-7288 > > ---------- > From: shields > Sent: Sunday, August 16, 1998 3:59 AM > To: mark > Cc: shields; nanog > Subject: Re: BBN Peering issues > > > fundamentally important that these ideals be extended to the future > of > > the Internet, if it is to have a future. No company should have the > > right to force another to pay for connectivity simply because the > latter > > has not been around since the beginning or they are not a telco. > > BBN is answerable to their customers and shareholders and not to your > or my ideals of how the Internet should work. > -- > Shields, CrossLink. > <<File: Re_ BBN Peering issues.TXT>> > > > -- ¢4i1å <<File: Re_ BBN Peering issues.TXT>>
Current thread:
- Re: BBN Peering issues, (continued)
- Re: BBN Peering issues Hank Nussbacher (Aug 15)
- RE: BBN Peering issues Goldstein_William (Aug 16)
- RE: BBN Peering issues Goldstein_William (Aug 16)
- Re: BBN Peering issues Karl Denninger (Aug 16)
- Re: BBN Peering issues Henry Linneweh (Aug 16)
- Re: BBN Peering issues Michael Shields (Aug 16)
- Re: BBN Peering issues Mark Tripod (Aug 17)
- Re: BBN Peering issues Michael Shields (Aug 16)
- Re: BBN Peering issues Tracy J. Snell (Aug 17)
- Re: BBN Peering issues Vadim Antonov (Aug 18)
- re: BBN Peering issues Gordon Cook (Aug 17)
- Re: BBN Peering issues Robert Bowman (Aug 18)
- RE: BBN Peering issues cheops POP (Aug 18)