nanog mailing list archives
Re: C&W Peering (and nTH Percentile Unite!)
From: James Thomason <james () divide org>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 22:51:23 -0700 (PDT)
On Tue, 5 Jun 2001, Christopher A. Woodfield wrote:
Could you explain how the PSI/C&W peering fracas has /anything/ to do with Nth percentile billing?
Sure, allow me to connect the dots. 1. The existence of common "peering" relationships can be attributed to the lack of any standard basis for a transaction in the Internet environment. 2. The existence of nTH percentile billing can be attributed to the lack of any standard basis for a transaction in the Internet environment. Therefore: 1. The PSI/CW scenario is a relfection of an inequitable relationship. Stand in awe of the effeciency. 2. nTH percentile billing is a reflection of a hierarchy of inequitable relationships. At least, thats my opinion. Regards, James
Current thread:
- Re: C&W Peering, (continued)
- Re: C&W Peering Richard Welty (Jun 04)
- Re: C&W Peering Vincent J. Bono (Jun 05)
- Re: C&W Peering Michael Whisenant (Jun 06)
- Re: C&W Peering Rafi Sadowsky (Jun 06)
- Re: C&W Peering Sean Donelan (Jun 04)
- Re: C&W Peering Kevin Loch (Jun 04)
- RE: C&W Peering Scott Patterson (Jun 04)
- RE: C&W Peering Matt Levine (Jun 04)
- RE: C&W Peering Scott Patterson (Jun 04)
- RE: C&W Peering James Thomason (Jun 04)
- Re: C&W Peering Christopher A. Woodfield (Jun 04)
- Re: C&W Peering (and nTH Percentile Unite!) James Thomason (Jun 04)
- Re: C&W Peering Christopher A. Woodfield (Jun 04)
- Re: C&W peering Toby_Williams (Jun 06)
- Re: C&W peering Stephen J. Wilcox (Jun 09)
- Re: C&W Peering Sean Donelan (Jun 07)