nanog mailing list archives
Re: Sprints definition on NAPs (question)
From: Enke Chen <enke () mci net>
Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 12:17:59 -0400
IMHO, it is a fair statement that these peers face great uncertainty. There should not be any loss of connectivity as their transit provider should take care of business. -- Enke
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 09:14:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Nathan Stratton <nathan () netrail net> To: Jeremy Porter <jerry () fc net> CC: loco () MFST COM, nanog () merit edu
On Wed, 1 May 1996, Jeremy Porter wrote:|} > the Sherman Act (if memory serves). These types of problems can be q
uite
|} > nasty, involving treble punitive damages.Unfortunately for Nathan, this above is wrong. There are very real engineering reasons for not peering if someone is at one NAP/MAE. Also since Sprint and MCI do have published policies, if they made exceptions to them they could get sued for discriminating against some competators (not all, makes a big legal difference).Ok, so what about Interpath, CAIS, and a bunch more that are peering with MCI and are at only 1 NAP?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- Re: Sprints definition on NAPs (question) Jeremy Porter (May 01)
- Re: Sprints definition on NAPs (question) Nathan Stratton (May 01)
- Re: Sprints definition on NAPs (question) Nathan Stratton (May 01)
- Re: Sprints definition on NAPs (question) Enke Chen (May 01)
- Re: Sprints definition on NAPs (question) Arun Welch (May 01)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Sprints definition on NAPs (question) Justin W. Newton (May 01)
- Re: Sprints definition on NAPs (question) Nathan Stratton (May 01)