nanog mailing list archives
Re: Google peering in LAX
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2020 14:35:14 -0800
Yes… That’s correct. Owen
On Mar 2, 2020, at 2:20 PM, Hugo Slabbert <hugo () slabnet com> wrote: I believe Owen was referring here to Google's actions: that the disagg is the antisocial behaviour and that transit providers (the people they are paying) would be more tolerant of that antisocial behaviour than would be peers (the people they are not paying). On Mon., Mar. 2, 2020, 13:19 Seth Mattinen <sethm () rollernet us <mailto:sethm () rollernet us>> wrote: On 3/2/20 12:44 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:In part, it might be because people you’re not paying may be less tolerant of anti-social behavior than people you are paying.I'm not sure how I was being offensive but OK.
Current thread:
- Google peering in LAX Seth Mattinen (Mar 02)
- Re: Google peering in LAX Owen DeLong (Mar 02)
- Re: Google peering in LAX Seth Mattinen (Mar 02)
- Re: Google peering in LAX Hugo Slabbert (Mar 02)
- Re: Google peering in LAX Owen DeLong (Mar 02)
- Re: Google peering in LAX Seth Mattinen (Mar 02)
- Re: Google peering in LAX Randy Carpenter (Mar 02)
- Re: Google peering in LAX Seth Mattinen (Mar 02)
- Re: Google peering in LAX Patrick W. Gilmore (Mar 02)
- Re: Google peering in LAX Seth Mattinen (Mar 02)
- Re: Google peering in LAX Patrick W. Gilmore (Mar 02)
- Re: Google peering in LAX Seth Mattinen (Mar 02)
- Re: Google peering in LAX Matthew Petach (Mar 02)
- Re: Google peering in LAX Seth Mattinen (Mar 02)
- Re: Google peering in LAX Owen DeLong (Mar 02)
- Re: Google peering in LAX Curtis Maurand (Mar 04)
- Re: Google peering in LAX Christopher Morrow (Mar 04)