mae-la

Thu Jul 17 17:30:41 UTC 1997

On Wed, Jul 16, 1997 at 08:42:53PM -0700, Bill Manning wrote:
> > A bit pointed, perhaps, but even from an engineering standpoint, that's
> > not a sentiment I'd expect from anyone who wasn't a WorldCom employee.
> > Certainly, it would make more sense _to UUNET_ to have people who want
> > to peer become their clients, instead; but that's not the _point_ of
> > peering, is it?
> 
> Why?  Because perhaps I see WorldCom dumping cash into its UUnet arm and
> terminating all but one of its MAE support staff? 

No, but if that's true, it's even more reason not to give UUnet any
money one doesn't have to.

> Or perhaps because I and Lance are keeping WorldCom "honest" by providing
> alternatives for MAE-WEST and MAE-LA clients?  Or do you have another reason
> why WorldCom is not more active in building up its MAE business?

I don't know, nor care, why they aren't, but peering with them is a
different business case than becoming their customer, by a long shot,
and it ought to remain different.

> I really don't care what WorldCom does with its MAE or UUnet business. I'm
> more interested in ensuring a cost effective means for ISPs local to LA have
> a neutral place to swap bits.  If folks can make bucks using this service, 
> great.  Just as long as they don't impede the R&E work that goes on.

_That's_ the attitude I want to see.  It's "just a business" for
WOrldCom nowadays, as far as I can see.  They trashed WilTel, which was
an engineering-drive company with a great technical reputation, and
they appear to be doing the same to UUnet.

> I'd like to continue to trade inuendo, but I have more interesting things 
> to do.  Perhaps if you end up in LA, you might have an opportunity to 
> make a choice about LAP/MAE-LA.  And we might have to consider if we want
> your custom.  But until then, for you, its a moot point.

Wasn't innuendo for innuendo's sake; your comment simply didn't appear
to have any reasonable motivation.  Your assertion appeared to be, and
correct me if I'm wrong, "why would backbone operators want to have the
MAE to peer with UUNET (and others) at, when they could simply become
UUNET customers, and let UUNET deal [poorly --jra] with the problems?"

If that's not an accurate perception of your intentions, perhaps you
could clarify.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Member of the Technical Staff             Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued
The Suncoast Freenet      "People propose, science studies, technology
Tampa Bay, Florida          conforms."  -- Dr. Don Norman      +1 813 790 7592