nanog mailing list archives
Re: Sprint peering policy
From: David Lesher <wb8foz () nrk com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 13:45:20 -0400 (EDT)
Unnamed Administration sources reported that Deepak Jain said:
Why would bankruptcies be a good reason to introduce regulation into peering or the Internet business?
The thing to fear is what's already happening; the fallen are being bought by Monopoly-plAyers, anxious to get Back to whEre they shaLL control all yet again. You decide for yourself if {not} peering is part of that picture... -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz () nrk com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Current thread:
- RE: Sprint peering policy, (continued)
- RE: Sprint peering policy Phil Rosenthal (Jul 01)
- Re: Sprint peering policy Richard A Steenbergen (Jul 01)
- Re: Sprint peering policy Paul Vixie (Jul 01)
- Re: Sprint peering policy alex (Jul 01)
- RE: Sprint peering policy Deepak Jain (Jul 01)
- RE: Sprint peering policy Phil Rosenthal (Jul 01)
- Re: Sprint peering policy Richard A Steenbergen (Jul 01)
- Re: Sprint peering policy Paul Vixie (Jul 01)
- Re: Sprint peering policy Nigel Titley (Jul 02)
- RE: Sprint peering policy Deepak Jain (Jul 01)
- Re: Sprint peering policy David Lesher (Jul 01)
- Re: Sprint peering policy Richard Irving (Jul 01)
- Re: Sprint peering policy alex (Jul 02)
- RE: Sprint peering policy Phil Rosenthal (Jul 01)
- RE: Sprint peering policy Deepak Jain (Jul 01)
- RE: Sprint peering policy Stephen J. Wilcox (Jul 01)
- Re: Sprint peering policy Richard A Steenbergen (Jul 01)