-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Eric Gauthier Sent: June 4, 2001 8:41 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: C&W Peering
Is this the part where the people (eg: Exodus, AboveNet are the two I can think of immediately) who were forced to get themselves some transit because PSI wouldn't peer with them anymore go and laugh at the irony of C&W pulling a PSI on PSI themselves?
I don't know about Abovenet, but when things when down between Exodus and PSI, my impression was that Exodus just got Sprint to carry the traffic. No new circuits, just a new path, and not a big deal because it was small amount of traffic (rumored to be <90Mb).
AboveNet did the same deal with Verio instead of Sprint... and they're still doing it, too, just like Exodus is still using Sprint to reach PSI. I don't think the issue here is one of circuits or anything, it's more one of embarassment. AboveNet, PSI, and probably C&W (I'm not sure about Exodus... ironically enough, it's the only one of these that I use) all claim that they're "tier 1" networks. However, AboveNet has been forced to get Verio to provide transit to PSI because of this. That, technically, means that AboveNet is not a tier 1 by my definition (according to me, and probably most people on this list, a tier 1 is someone who has no transit from anyone). Now, PSI, which used to call itself "the Internet supercarrier" IIRC (ironically, until a year or two, maybe three, ago, also claimed their DS3 frame relay network was state of the art), may be forced to get someone to transit the 2.5 megabits (or is my guess too high?) of traffic to CW. It's not likely to be a big technical deal, but the irony I find to be quite prominent. First PSI forced others to make transit arrangements because of their greed, and now CW is possibly making PSI do the same, for probably the same motives. Vivien -- Vivien M. vivienm@dyndns.org Assistant System Administrator Dynamic DNS Network Services http://www.dyndns.org/