nanog mailing list archives
RE: C&W Peering Problem?
From: Sean Donelan <sean () donelan com>
Date: 1 Jun 2001 14:45:29 -0700
On Fri, 01 June 2001, "Scott Patterson" wrote:
Point C says 2:1, but D says they don't care in which direction its in, it just has to be balanced.
I wonder how is the end of reciprocal compensation going to affect large dial modem pool providers (e.g. UUNET, Genuity). Should UUNET compensate the LEC for all that inbound traffic to their modem pools at a few cents per minute. Obviously the traffic is extremely imbalanced, so why should UUNET get a free ride on the LEC's network?
Current thread:
- Re: C&W Peering Problem?, (continued)
- Re: C&W Peering Problem? Charles Scott (Jun 01)
- Re: C&W Peering Problem? David Diaz (Jun 01)
- Re: C&W Peering Problem? Simon Lockhart (Jun 01)
- RE: C&W Peering Problem? Jason Lewis (Jun 01)
- Re: C&W Peering Problem? Christopher A. Woodfield (Jun 01)
- RE: C&W Peering Problem? Scott Patterson (Jun 01)
- Re: C&W Peering Problem? Christian Nielsen (Jun 05)
- Re: C&W Peering Problem? Simon Lockhart (Jun 01)
- Re: C&W Peering Problem? Bill Woodcock (Jun 01)
- Re: C&W Peering Problem? David Diaz (Jun 01)
- RE: C&W Peering Problem? Steve Schaefer (Jun 01)
- Re: C&W Peering Problem? Jeff Mcadams (Jun 02)
- RE: C&W Peering Problem? Vivien M. (Jun 01)
- Re: C&W Peering Problem? Christopher A. Woodfield (Jun 02)
- RE: C&W Peering Problem? Albert Meyer (Jun 02)
- RE: C&W Peering Problem? Mike Leber (Jun 01)
- Re: C&W Peering Problem? Leo Bicknell (Jun 02)
- Re: C&W Peering Problem? john heasley (Jun 02)