ratios

Wed May 8 14:53:12 UTC 2002

</lurk>

  Well, Never Forget -the- man who defined peering to the FCC,
 among other american institutions, in modern times .....

  is no less than "Bernie" of WorldCom.

  And, as "Bernie" leaves us, facing allegations of all sorts of things..

  Let us never forget -he- was selected to be the "Ethical" 
  guiding light for the internet, circumscribing the boundaries
  of our .... policies.

  And CW's policy is merely following in his footsteps,
  following "precedent", as it were. (IMHO)

  Of course, I, for one, 
   was never one to follow the Pied Piper....

  As PSI, Global Center, Enron, The Leader of Earthlink....
  and others, were to learn the wisdom thereof.

  An Internet -without- peering, hrmmm......

  FWIW, I noticed a trend of people withdrawing peering 
  shortly before chapter 13'ing.

   * shrug *

  BTW, anyone checked the value of WorldCom stock recently ?

  "No man is an island"

<lurk>

Dean S Moran wrote:
> 
> 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