mailing list archives
Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!?
From: Charles Scott <cscott () gaslightmedia com>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 12:44:56 -0400 (EDT)
Pardon my ignorance on this issue, but I read C&W's receint peering
agreement and it seems they are simply trying to define what is a true
"peer". My question is, where is the traditional line that defines who
should be a "peer" and who should be a customer and shouldn't that be open
to re-evaluation as the network evolves. Is it that C&W has "rigged" their
peering agreement with specifics that would de-peer legitimate peers or
are they just trying to protect themselves from an evolutinary change.
On Mon, 7 May 2001, Albert Meyer wrote:
Didn't UUNet try this back in 96? A quick search of Boardwatch failed to
find the article, but ISTR that John Sidgemore eventually slunk back to the
playground and agreed to play nice. If UUNet couldn't pull it off back
then, I doubt that CW can now. Things have changed a lot in 5 years, but I
would suspect that "Stealing the Internet" would now be harder rather than
At 01:31 PM 5/6/01 -0500, Joseph T. Klein wrote:
It seems to be worthy of note that AGIS and PSI tried to use the
"pay me don't peer" card before they deteriorated.
Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!? Owen DeLong (May 07)
RE: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!? Barrows, Jeff (May 07)