nanog mailing list archives
Re: C&W Peering
From: Eric Gauthier <eric () roxanne org>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 20:40:34 -0400
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). Eric :)
Current thread:
- RE: C&W Peering, (continued)
- RE: C&W Peering David Schwartz (Jun 04)
- Re: C&W Peering shane (Jun 05)
- Re: C&W Peering shane (Jun 05)
- Message not available
- Re: C&W Peering ken harris. (Jun 05)
- Re: C&W Peering Jared Mauch (Jun 04)
- Re: C&W Peering Mike Hughes (Jun 04)
- RE: C&W Peering Vivien M. (Jun 04)
- RE: C&W Peering John Starta (Jun 04)
- Re: C&W Peering Christopher A. Woodfield (Jun 04)
- Re: C&W Peering Jared Mauch (Jun 04)
- Message not available
- Re: C&W Peering Eric Gauthier (Jun 04)
- RE: C&W Peering Vivien M. (Jun 04)
- Re: C&W Peering Leo Bicknell (Jun 04)
- Re: C&W Peering Richard Welty (Jun 04)
- Re: C&W Peering Vincent J. Bono (Jun 05)
- Re: C&W Peering Rafi Sadowsky (Jun 06)
- RE: C&W Peering Scott Patterson (Jun 04)
- RE: C&W Peering Matt Levine (Jun 04)