nanog mailing list archives
RE: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!?
From: "David Schwartz" <davids () webmaster com>
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 19:31:25 -0700
Who gets hurt more if a hole is created due to de-peering?you do. c&w loses .00001 of the net. you lose .02. next question. randy
Not so fast. While each of his customers is more inconvenienced than each c&w customer, c&w has more customers. The net inconvenience (total number of people inconvenienced multiplied by the average inconvenience to each) might be nearly the same on both sides. As an added bonus, he has someone else to blame. DS PS: Sorry for the late reply. I was away for a week.
Current thread:
- RE: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!? David Schwartz (May 05)
- Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!? John Payne (May 05)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!? Richard A. Steenbergen (May 05)
- RE: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!? Daniel Golding (May 05)
- Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!? Tony Mumm (May 06)
- Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!? Joseph T. Klein (May 06)
- Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!? Albert Meyer (May 07)
- Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!? Paul Vixie (May 07)
- Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!? Peter van Dijk (May 07)
- Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!? Joseph T. Klein (May 07)
- Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!? Simon Lyall (May 07)
- RE: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!? Daniel Golding (May 05)