nanog mailing list archives
RE: Agenda for next NANOG
From: Peter Ford <peterf () microsoft com>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 18:17:10 -0700
Looking at it strictly from a technical level, there is little difference between a private interconnect and the connection between an ISP and their upstream provider if they have one. (we might consider debating this assumption especially in terms of scale :-)) One might as well ask if ISPs are willing to publicly display their packet drop rates where they buy connectivity from their upstream providers at the same time one is asking MCI, Sprint, UUNet and ANS for their interconnection drop statistics. Might it be easier for a customer of an ISP to get this kind of data from their ISP? Or not? Cheers, peter
---------- I wonder if this is something involved parties (MCI, Sprint, UUNet and ANS) are willing to talk about, given that I've noticed some degradation on performance across some of these private interconnects already.. (and it's only been couple of months since they came online!) I understand that these are private arrangements between involved parties, but given their importance, it would be a great service to the community if the involved parties could share some information. -dorian - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- Re: Agenda for next NANOG Guy T Almes (Sep 03)
- Re: Agenda for next NANOG Randy Bush (Sep 03)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Agenda for next NANOG Guy T Almes (Sep 03)
- Re: Agenda for next NANOG Sean Doran (Sep 03)
- Re: Agenda for next NANOG John Hawkinson (Sep 03)
- Re: Agenda for next NANOG Curtis Villamizar (Sep 03)
- RE: Agenda for next NANOG Peter Ford (Sep 03)
- Re: Agenda for next NANOG bmanning (Sep 03)
- Re: Agenda for next NANOG John Hawkinson (Sep 03)
- Re: Agenda for next NANOG Avi Freedman (Sep 04)
- Re: Agenda for next NANOG bmanning (Sep 03)
- Re: Agenda for next NANOG Craig Labovitz (Sep 04)
- Re: Agenda for next NANOG Curtis Villamizar (Sep 04)
- Re: Agenda for next NANOG Brett D. Watson (Sep 05)