nanog mailing list archives
Re: US-Asia Peering
From: Bill Woodcock <woody () pch net>
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 10:35:09 -0800 (PST)
> clearly, interconnecting their exchange points to create a richly- > connected Internet 'core' is a natural progression if their > customers don't complain too loudly. > not that it's a bad long-term plan... Actually, it is. It's failed in every prior instance. It's one of the many, many ways in which exchange points commit suicide. -Bill
Current thread:
- US-Asia Peering William B. Norton (Jan 02)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Stephen Stuart (Jan 03)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Jeff Barrows (Jan 03)
- Re: US-Asia Peering David Diaz (Jan 03)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Jared Mauch (Jan 03)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Bill Woodcock (Jan 03)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Joe Provo (Jan 03)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Stephen Stuart (Jan 03)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Jeff Barrows (Jan 03)
- Re: US-Asia Peering William B. Norton (Jan 09)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Bill Woodcock (Jan 09)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Stephen J. Wilcox (Jan 09)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Randy Bush (Jan 09)
- Re: US-Asia Peering William B. Norton (Jan 09)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Randy Bush (Jan 09)
- Re: US-Asia Peering William B. Norton (Jan 09)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Paul Vixie (Jan 09)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Stephen Stuart (Jan 03)