nanog mailing list archives
Re: Verio Peering Question
From: smd () clock org (Sean M. Doran)
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 19:09:39 -0700 (PDT)
| As a network | provider, we need to have robust network connectivity. An upstream that | aggregates my routes more, thus endangering my network connectivity | would *quickly* lose my business. Then you have a good reason to begin negotiations with other networks with a view to them accepting your unaggregated/unaggregatable prefixes, and can account for this as a cost of doing business. | Is your position, honestly, that a provider the size of IgLou doesn't | *deserve* to have robust network connectivity because we're not big | enough? If so, I'll be sure to avoid purchasing any transit from you. I'm saying that if you are in the business of providing transit, you must be prepared to absorb some costs, rather than dump them on your fellow transit providers. Transit from me is a luxury I doubt you need or can afford, but feel free to take my earlier advice: shut up and send a cheque. Sean.
Current thread:
- Re: Verio Peering Question, (continued)
- Re: Verio Peering Question Marshall Eubanks (Oct 02)
- RE: Verio Peering Question Sean M. Doran (Oct 02)
- Re: Verio Peering Question Jeff Mcadams (Oct 02)
- Re: Verio Peering Question Alex Bligh (Oct 02)
- Re: Verio Peering Question Jeff Mcadams (Oct 02)
- Re: Verio Peering Question Alex Bligh (Oct 03)
- Re: Verio Peering Question E.B. Dreger (Oct 02)
- Re: Verio Peering Question Jeff Mcadams (Oct 02)
- Re: Verio Peering Question Jeff Mcadams (Oct 02)
- Re: Verio Peering Question R.P. Aditya (Oct 02)
- Re: Verio Peering Question Jeff Mcadams (Oct 03)
- Re: Verio Peering Question Jeff Mcadams (Oct 03)
- sub-basement multihoming (Re: Verio Peering Question) E.B. Dreger (Oct 03)
- Re: sub-basement multihoming (Re: Verio Peering Question) kevin graham (Oct 03)
- Re: sub-basement multihoming (Re: Verio Peering Question) Iljitsch van Beijnum (Oct 03)
- Re: Verio Peering Question Iljitsch van Beijnum (Oct 03)