Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!?
owen at dixon.delong.sj.ca.us
Mon May 7 17:35:46 UTC 2001
A similar tactic was also used by PSI about 9 months ago. The evalutaion
of the success of their maneuver is left as an exercise for the reader and
the bankruptcy court judges.
> On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 09:37:10AM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > albert at waller.net (Albert Meyer) writes:
> > > 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. ...
> > I am completely fascinated by your assessment (that UUNet didn't pull it off).
> It is rare, but I agree with Paul here :)
> Unet is, for example, one of the few (if not the only) ISP in The
> Netherlands that charges for *peering* (no, not transit, just peering).
> More and more clued people I know are avoiding UUnet because they
> don't peer with the small but quickly growing ISPs. Most UUnet
> customers are getting worse and worse connectivity as other ISPs stop
> peering with UUnet, because UUnet is becoming less and less important.
> A nice downward spiral.
> Greetz, Peter.
More information about the NANOG