nanog mailing list archives
Re: C&W Peering (and nTH Percentile Unite!)
From: James Thomason <james () divide org>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 22:51:23 -0700 (PDT)
On Tue, 5 Jun 2001, Christopher A. Woodfield wrote:
Could you explain how the PSI/C&W peering fracas has /anything/ to do with Nth percentile billing?
Sure, allow me to connect the dots.
1. The existence of common "peering" relationships can be attributed to
the lack of any standard basis for a transaction in the Internet
environment.
2. The existence of nTH percentile billing can be attributed to the lack
of any standard basis for a transaction in the Internet environment.
Therefore:
1. The PSI/CW scenario is a relfection of an inequitable
relationship. Stand in awe of the effeciency.
2. nTH percentile billing is a reflection of a hierarchy of inequitable
relationships.
At least, thats my opinion.
Regards,
James
Current thread:
- Re: C&W Peering, (continued)
- Re: C&W Peering Richard Welty (Jun 04)
- Re: C&W Peering Vincent J. Bono (Jun 05)
- Re: C&W Peering Michael Whisenant (Jun 06)
- Re: C&W Peering Rafi Sadowsky (Jun 06)
- Re: C&W Peering Sean Donelan (Jun 04)
- Re: C&W Peering Kevin Loch (Jun 04)
- RE: C&W Peering Scott Patterson (Jun 04)
- RE: C&W Peering Matt Levine (Jun 04)
- RE: C&W Peering Scott Patterson (Jun 04)
- RE: C&W Peering James Thomason (Jun 04)
- Re: C&W Peering Christopher A. Woodfield (Jun 04)
- Re: C&W Peering (and nTH Percentile Unite!) James Thomason (Jun 04)
- Re: C&W Peering Christopher A. Woodfield (Jun 04)
- Re: C&W peering Toby_Williams (Jun 06)
- Re: C&W peering Stephen J. Wilcox (Jun 09)
- Re: C&W Peering Sean Donelan (Jun 07)
