Re: C&W Peering

[Travis Pugh <tpugh () shore net>]

On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:

> Yes, but if one or the other has backup peering, it would not look like 
> that.  It would look like _3561_.*_174_ or _174_.*_3561_ - prolly the 
> former since AS3561 gives route-views a feed, but AS714 does not.
>
> Looking in route-views for those two patterns, I see only a few routes 
> under 3561.*_174_, probably leakage.  There are no routes of the form 
> _174_.*_3561_.

Ah ... me and my half-assed regular expressions.  Thanks for the clean-up
work, Patrick.

The most recent showdown I can relate this to is Time Warner turning off
ABC over contract disputes.  The odd thing about that was that ABC seemed
to get more of the public opinion blame than TW did ... is it possible
that PSI's distressed financial state will affect public perception of who
is at fault?

Either way, I wouldn't expect CW to turn anything back on until they get
enough customer complaints that they can't hold out any longer ... this is
certainly not the cleanest way to settle a contract dispute, and should
serve as a stark warning to anyone considering CW for transit.

-travis

> --
> TTFN,
> patrick