nanog mailing list archives
Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!?
From: Paul Vixie <vixie () mfnx net>
Date: 07 May 2001 23:19:27 -0700
peter () dataloss nl (Peter van Dijk) writes:
I do still think UUnet is in a downward spiral, just like C&W. Strong peering policies are not good for the Internet.
Well, before I returned to PAIX, I was CTO of MFN. MFN had bought Abovenet, and I learnt to respect strong peering policies. Abovenet's peering policy was, and as far as I know still is, very "strong". It's strongly _open_, which means it's different from the purported C&W policy being discussed here this week. But while different it is still "strong". I think what you were looking to say above is that "*closed* peering policies are not good for the Internet." Probably noone will *publically* disagree with such sentiments. Not on nanog, anyway.
Current thread:
- Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!?, (continued)
- Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!? Joseph T. Klein (May 07)
- Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!? Simon Lyall (May 07)
- Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!? Peter van Dijk (May 07)
- RE: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!? David Schwartz (May 07)
- Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!? hardie (May 07)
- Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!? Jeff Mcadams (May 07)
- RE: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!? David Schwartz (May 07)
- RE: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!? Stephen J. Wilcox (May 08)
- Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!? Stephen Stuart (May 07)
- RE: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!? Mike Leber (May 07)
- Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!? Paul Vixie (May 07)
- Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!? Alex Bligh (May 08)
- Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!? Charles Scott (May 07)
- Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!? John Payne (May 06)
