Re: Re: Peering Table Question

[Shawn McMahon <smcmahon () eiv com>]

Unless, of course, the DoJ believes one is trying to be sneaky and get
around such concerns.

Say, because one made public statements insinuating it.  :-)


On Wed, 19 Apr 2000, Randy Bush wrote:
> Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 15:19:43 -0700
> To: Alex Rubenstein <alex () nac net>
> From: Randy Bush <randy () psg com>
> Subject: Re: Peering Table Question
>
>
> sometimes paid pseudo-peering is nice because, as the payee is really a
> customer, one does not have to be as formal about consistent application
> of peering qualifications as one does for true peering, when one has to
> presume that some day one will be explaining equitable treatment to the
> doj, ec, ...