On Sun, 5 Dec 1999, Dana Hudes wrote:
The pressure is on to use co-location service only from Big Players. Indeed, remember the big fight over Exodus peering arrangements? Someone (GTE?) decided that Exodus should pay them for transit and pulled peering. since no other large network pulled such stunt the result was that GTE customers were inconvenienced more than Exodus customers. The message is loud and clear. If you want your server farm to have good access, put it in a good co-location facility in the US run by (or connect your co-located equipment to) a very large provider who has good redundancy not only of their network as a whole but of their colo facility (a co-lo facility with only one WAN circuit does not have good redundancy even if the LAN is exceedingly good and fault-tolerant etc.).
I'd disagree whole-heartedly (partly because I am not a huge, national tier-1). Wouldn't you rather connect your equipment to a smaller company, that is potentially more flexible, has more clueful people, has better pricing, and is multihomed to maybe 3 or 6 or 9 backbones?