C&W Peering

Tue Jun 5 00:14:50 UTC 2001

	Uh.

	Why are you yelling at PSI when you have failed to do your
own calculations?  Perhaps they have taken data from
archive.route-views.org to determine what the actual loss of
connectivity was.

	I don't have the time to go out and validate the PSINet claims
of how much of the net is gone for them and their (single-homed)
customers.

	Perhaps someone who is more of a data processing person can go
out and provide some interesting data, such as

Number of ASNs single-homed (based on route-views data)
Top 5/10/20/25 providers based on as-path
Number of networks/ips/ASNs behind each of those top 5/10/20/25 that
	would be missing connectivity.

	- Jared

On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 07:55:14PM -0400, Christopher A. Woodfield wrote:
> 
> THE UNITED STATES and Offnet Connectivity                   
> Cable & Wireless chose to terminate connectivity with       
> PSINet on 2June01.  Over 90% of the traffic that used 
> to be routed through C&W is now being routed via other means      
> through our robust global free peering infrastructure.  
> The remaining 10% or so represents C&W customers that have 
> been deliberately cut off from PSINet by C&W.  While PSINet 
> is ready and willing to re-establish connectivity with 
> C&W at any time, it is up to C&W to choose to reverse their        
> previous decision.  In the meantime, PSINet can offer  
> services directly to those C&W customers that are affected. 
> 
> OK, PSI seems to assert that 90% of C&W networks are still accessable from 
> PSI customers. NANOG research so far has determined that this is 
> definitely *not* the case. If anyone has evidence to support PSI's claim, 
> please post.
> 
> Dear PSI: this may not be directly your fault, but dammit, own up to the 
> scope of the issue. It's in your interest to take advantage of being the 
> "good guy" for once, so don't ruin it by lying about the scope of the 
> problem.
> 
> I don't think that this is going to be solved by C&W reversing themselves; 
> I think PSI is going to have to get itself some transit, and quickly. 
> 
> -C
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 04:18:48PM -0700, John Starta wrote:
> > 
> > See PSINet's network status page (http://www.psi.com/cgi-bin/netstatus.pl5) 
> > for a possible answer.
> > 
> > jas
> > 
> > At 06:22 PM 6/4/01 -0400, Vivien M. wrote:
> > >I suppose now PSI gets to learn the hard way what happens when they scared
> > >half their peers away (to be polite...), and now find that a bunch of the
> > >other half are now turning down their PSI peering links. (BTW, has it been
> > >established here whether PSI or CW is to blame for this?)
> > 
> 
> -- 
> ---------------------------
> Christopher A. Woodfield		rekoil at semihuman.com
> 
> PGP Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xB887618B

-- 
Jared Mauch  | pgp key available via finger from jared at puck.nether.net
clue++;      | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/  My statements are only mine.