ratios

Wed May 8 14:14:56 UTC 2002

Peter Jansen wrote:

>Scott:
>Have a look at our peering policy at www.cw.com/peering. It will
>provide you with some information on peering with large networks.

This should read: "Have a look at our peering policy at www.cw.com/peering
if you want to see a prime example of how *not* to develop your peering
policy."

Peter, I can't believe you have the testicular fortutude to come on this
list with this garbage.  Do you think we have forgotten the PSI/C&W peering
fiasco?  Dude, you had *paying* customers who depended on having routes
into AS174, and you turned your back on them, knowing damn good and well
that PSI was in no position to purchase transit.  In fact, I'm surprised to
see that you're still a C&W employee after all that mess.

Plus, wtf is this clause about announcing 5000 routes?  What a crock of
s**t!  This really encourages aggregation, doesn't it?

You'd think, after all of the Exodus customers jumping ship after C&W
bought them, that you'd start rethinking your business practices.  People
want, and are willing to pay for, a well connected network, and AS3561
isn't, at least not to the outside world.

Also, I would like to point out that if you're mostly content, I doubt
you'll ever be able to meet C&W's peering criteria because they have
practically no eyeballs.  Their wholesale dial division is pretty much
extinct, and they seem to be leaning more toward hosting than selling T1s
to mom and pop dialup ISPS.

It's a great big catch-22 any way you look at it, and I hate you, Peter
Jansen, for it.  There's a special level of hell for people like you when
you die.

Dean

>Regards
>
>Peter Jansen
>Global Peering
>Cable & Wireless
>
>
>
>
>
>Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 13:30 -0400 (EDT)
>From: Scott Granados <scott at graphidelix.net>
>To: nanog at merit.edu
>Sender: owner-nanog at merit.edu
>Delivered-to: nanog-outgoing at trapdoor.merit.edu
>Delivered-to: nanog at trapdoor.merit.edu
>Delivered-to: nanog at merit.edu
>Subject: ratios
>
>
>I'm not overly familiar with this but I wondered if someone could detail
>for me the basics of using ratios to determine elegibility to peer?   I
>have heard that some carrers especially the largest require a specific
>ratio is this in fact true and is the logic as simple as just insuring
>equal use of the peer?
>
>Thanks
>
>Scott

_____________________________________________
Free email with personality! Over 200 domains!
http://www.MyOwnEmail.com