[deleted] Personally speaking, I'm a little worred that this isn't the last C+W peering issue that we will hear about in the near future, unless of the new flows of customers abandoning them changes a few minds at corporate HQ, I've certainly heard from a large European C+W customer who is now seriously thinking about finding alternatives because of this action. Also, I couldn't recommend buying connectivity from any organisation who randomly disconnects people without consultation/communication to their customer base, and operates draconian and stupid peering policies. Regards, Neil. ----- I think this is a great point. Wouldn't BOTH networks be to blame from a Customer point of view? I know if I were a customer of either network, I would move to one not involved in either place. Frankly I don't think customers care about where the mud is slung. *IF* a site they want is effected, they will move when it is economically feasible to do so. I would say that being unable to reach a site you expect to reach is a significant drop in service, possibly below acceptable contractual levels. Then I'd leave it in the hands of the attorneys. There is no way [the company who terminated peering] is going to make money off of this venture, because invariably whoever the transit is bought from will be a peer of [the company who terminated peering]. And rather than encourage transit relationships, it encourages more and more direct relationships with large customers. Years ago peering was only between large networks -- the "technical complexity" was beyond mere "customers". Now large/regional customers try to design relationships with other large/regional customers. Eventually it may go to even smaller shops. Deepak Jain AiNET