JS Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 09:48:25 -0400
JS From: James Smith
JS I think we all assume that our provider guarantees us some
JS sort of total reachability. Near as I can figure, they do
JS not. Therefore, you buy a pipe into their network based on
JS percieved and actual connectivity and hope
H maybe there should be a list of peering policies site
a la Jared's NOC page.
BTW, has anybody else tried calling the toll-free Sprint NOC
number listed on puck.nether.net? Is this a new alternative to
on-hold muzak? ;-)
(To prevent slashdotting said INWATS line without totally
Title: RE: Effects of de-peering... (was RE: ratios)
-Original Message-
From: E.B. Dreger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 10:13 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Effects of de-peering... (was RE: ratios)
snip
H maybe there should be a list
JS Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 10:26:13 -0400
JS From: James Smith
JS H maybe there should be a list of peering
JS policies site a la Jared's NOC page.
JS Interesting idea. Include verifiable user comments as to what
JS the policy actually is as exemplified by actual practice
JS vs. what
James Smith wrote (on May 10):
Maybe it is possible he made a business decision based on the long term
costs involved with multihoming/redundancy vs. the loss of near total
reachability. He may have come to the conclusion that the probability of
that scenario occuring was not sufficient
CL Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 18:29:23 +0100
CL From: Chrisy Luke
[ snipped ]
CL While nobody has tried to take a Tier-1 to court for what
CL could be taken as anti-competitive actions said providers
CL will carry on - it's win-win for them. The marginal loss of
CL connectivity to *your* network
