Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!?

Joseph T. Klein jtk at
Mon May 7 17:51:03 UTC 2001

I contend that if quantifiable evidence exists that setting the peering
bar high in the name of selling transit and/or restricting new players
leads to a downward spiral in network quality ... then evidence exists
that can be taken to stockholders and BOD of those companies.

Companies, unless they are run by less than competent management, will
not knowingly commit economic suicide. Stockholders tend to have a very
low tolerance for management stupidity. Stockholder tolerance now is
a lot lower then five years ago.

At 6:45 PM +0200 07-05-2001, Peter van Dijk wrote:
>On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 09:37:10AM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote:
>>  albert at (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.

Joseph T. Klein                                         +1 414 915 7489
Senior Network Engineer                                 jtk at
Adelphia Business Solutions                joseph.klein at

     "... the true value of the Internet is its connectedness ..."
                                                  -- John W. Stewart III

More information about the NANOG mailing list