nanog mailing list archives
Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!?
From: John Payne <john () sackheads org>
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 20:21:03 -0700
On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 07:31:25PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
Who gets hurt more if a hole is created due to de-peering?you do. c&w loses .00001 of the net. you lose .02. next question. randyNot so fast. While each of his customers is more inconvenienced than each c&w customer, c&w has more customers. The net inconvenience (total number of people inconvenienced multiplied by the average inconvenience to each) might be nearly the same on both sides. As an added bonus, he has someone else to blame.
That depends. Somebody that small (0.0001) is not going to be transit free... so there isn't really a hole created. Sure, the smaller guy is going to be paying more on transit rather than peering, but C&W customers probably won't notice a thing, other than some relief on the congested pipes to the public peering points. -- John Payne http://www.sackheads.org/jpayne/ john () sackheads org http://www.sackheads.org/uce/ Fax: +44 870 0547954 To send me mail, use the address in the From: header
Current thread:
- RE: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!? David Schwartz (May 05)
- Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!? John Payne (May 05)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!? Richard A. Steenbergen (May 05)
- RE: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!? Daniel Golding (May 05)
- Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!? Tony Mumm (May 06)
- Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!? Joseph T. Klein (May 06)
- Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!? Albert Meyer (May 07)
- Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!? Paul Vixie (May 07)
- Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!? Peter van Dijk (May 07)
- Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!? Joseph T. Klein (May 07)
- Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!? Simon Lyall (May 07)
- Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!? Peter van Dijk (May 07)
- RE: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!? Daniel Golding (May 05)