nanog mailing list archives
Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!?
From: owen () dixon delong sj ca us (Owen DeLong)
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 10:35:46 -0700
A similar tactic was also used by PSI about 9 months ago. The evalutaion of the success of their maneuver is left as an exercise for the reader and the bankruptcy court judges. Owen
On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 09:37:10AM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote:albert () waller net (Albert Meyer) writes:Didn't UUNet try this back in 96? A quick search of Boardwatch failed to find the article, but ISTR that John Sidgemore eventually slunk back to the playground and agreed to play nice. If UUNet couldn't pull it off back then, I doubt that CW can now. ...I am completely fascinated by your assessment (that UUNet didn't pull it off).It is rare, but I agree with Paul here :) Unet is, for example, one of the few (if not the only) ISP in The Netherlands that charges for *peering* (no, not transit, just peering). More and more clued people I know are avoiding UUnet because they don't peer with the small but quickly growing ISPs. Most UUnet customers are getting worse and worse connectivity as other ISPs stop peering with UUnet, because UUnet is becoming less and less important. A nice downward spiral. Greetz, Peter.
Current thread:
- Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!?, (continued)
- Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!? hardie (May 07)
- Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!? Jeff Mcadams (May 07)
- RE: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!? David Schwartz (May 07)
- RE: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!? Stephen J. Wilcox (May 08)
- Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!? Stephen Stuart (May 07)
- RE: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!? Mike Leber (May 07)
- Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!? Paul Vixie (May 07)
- Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!? Alex Bligh (May 08)
- Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!? Charles Scott (May 07)
- Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!? John Payne (May 06)