Re: peering wars revisited? PSI vs Exodus

[Adam Rothschild <asr () latency net>]

On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 09:27:11PM -0400, Gordon Cook wrote:
> surprised not to see this mentioned on NANOG
[...]
> > Subject:     Exodus Customer Confidential Communication

As am I.  Maybe because it's marked as confidential.  While I'm told the
confidentially of such communications may not be legally enforceable (then
again, IANAL!), what you did was discourteous. I won't say unprofessional,
because today's professional waters are shark-infested; but I do look to
a higher standard with my friends in the industry.

> > Exodus has been notified that PSI will be disconnecting the DS3
> > connections that are in place between our networks at midnight PST Friday
> > 3/31. At the time of the disconnect all connectivity to PSI networks will
> > be lost. This decision and action is being made unilaterally by PSINet and
> > against the request of Exodus. We continue to hope that PSI will work with
> > us. However, we are working on alternate methods of connectivity to PSI at
> > this time and hope to have a solution in place that will minimize the
> > impact to our customers.

> is this a replay of Exodus vs BBN?

Maybe, maybe not.  

I don't know where the facts lie, but it does seem as though Exodus is
providing its customers with a one-sided account of what's going
on, in which PSI is portrayed as the bad guy.  This message is completely
void of any useful technical information (prolly due to NDA), and instead
reads like something carefully crafted by PR folks.

If PSI were to issue an official statement on this topic, I have a feeling
what they'd say would be vastly different.  Then again, I could be mistaken.

Just my $0.02...

-adam