nanog mailing list archives
RE: Sprint peering policy
From: "Deepak Jain" <deepak () ai net>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 15:04:32 -0400
The reason we have this industry alive is investment bankers. Had we not had it, there would not have been abundance of fiber, abundance of competition and easy accessibility of IP. Like it or not, without these games we would have still though of a T1 as of a huge pipe. ---- True, and without further investment (by someone) we may think of an OC-192 as a huge pipe in 10 years. [work with me here. I am trying to make the point that a 10G/s line, which is available today, will not be significantly improved on for the forseeable future unless someone does investment]. DJ
Current thread:
- Re: Sprint peering policy, (continued)
- Re: Sprint peering policy alex (Jul 02)
- Re: Sprint peering policy Richard Irving (Jul 02)
- Re: Sprint peering policy Valdis . Kletnieks (Jul 02)
- RE: Sprint peering policy Phil Rosenthal (Jul 01)
- Re: Sprint peering policy Clayton Fiske (Jul 01)
- Re: Sprint peering policy Richard A Steenbergen (Jul 01)
- RE: Sprint peering policy Phil Rosenthal (Jul 01)
- Re: Sprint peering policy Richard A Steenbergen (Jul 01)
- Re: Sprint peering policy Paul Vixie (Jul 01)
- Re: Sprint peering policy alex (Jul 01)
- RE: Sprint peering policy Deepak Jain (Jul 01)
- RE: Sprint peering policy Phil Rosenthal (Jul 01)
- Re: Sprint peering policy Richard A Steenbergen (Jul 01)
- Re: Sprint peering policy Paul Vixie (Jul 01)
- Re: Sprint peering policy Nigel Titley (Jul 02)
- RE: Sprint peering policy Deepak Jain (Jul 01)
- Re: Sprint peering policy David Lesher (Jul 01)
- Re: Sprint peering policy Richard Irving (Jul 01)