Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!?

Charles Scott cscott at gaslightmedia.com
Mon May 7 16:44:56 UTC 2001



Altert:
  Pardon my ignorance on this issue, but I read C&W's receint peering
agreement and it seems they are simply trying to define what is a true
"peer". My question is, where is the traditional line that defines who
should be a "peer" and who should be a customer and shouldn't that be open
to re-evaluation as the network evolves. Is it that C&W has "rigged" their
peering agreement with specifics that would de-peer legitimate peers or
are they just trying to protect themselves from an evolutinary change.

Chuck



On Mon, 7 May 2001, Albert Meyer wrote:

> 
> Didn't UUNet try this back in 96? A quick search of Boardwatch failed to 
> find the article, but ISTR that John Sidgemore eventually slunk back to the 
> playground and agreed to play nice. If UUNet couldn't pull it off back 
> then, I doubt that CW can now. Things have changed a lot in 5 years, but I 
> would suspect that "Stealing the Internet" would now be harder rather than 
> easier.
> 
> At 01:31 PM 5/6/01 -0500, Joseph T. Klein wrote:
> >It seems to be worthy of note that AGIS and PSI tried to use the
> >"pay me don't peer" card before they deteriorated.
> 
> 

-- 






More information about the NANOG mailing list