nanog mailing list archives
Re: Sprints definition on NAPs (question)
From: "Justin W. Newton" <justin () erols com>
Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 15:48:41 -0400
At 09:14 AM 5/1/96 -0400, you wrote:
On Wed, 1 May 1996, Jeremy Porter wrote:|} > the Sherman Act (if memory serves). These types of problems can be
quite
|} > nasty, involving treble punitive damages.Unfortunately for Nathan, this above is wrong. There are very real engineering reasons for not peering if someone is at one NAP/MAE. Also since Sprint and MCI do have published policies, if they made exceptions to them they could get sued for discriminating against some competators (not all, makes a big legal difference).Ok, so what about Interpath, CAIS, and a bunch more that are peering with MCI and are at only 1 NAP?
Probably because they were peering with MCI before the policy, but thats just a guess. Justin Newton * You have to change just to stay Internet Architect * caught up. Erol's Internet Services * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- Re: Sprints definition on NAPs (question) Jeremy Porter (May 01)
- Re: Sprints definition on NAPs (question) Nathan Stratton (May 01)
- Re: Sprints definition on NAPs (question) Nathan Stratton (May 01)
- Re: Sprints definition on NAPs (question) Enke Chen (May 01)
- Re: Sprints definition on NAPs (question) Arun Welch (May 01)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Sprints definition on NAPs (question) Justin W. Newton (May 01)
- Re: Sprints definition on NAPs (question) Nathan Stratton (May 01)