nanog mailing list archives
Re: US-Asia Peering
From: Paul Vixie <vixie () vix com>
Date: 13 Jan 2003 07:58:20 +0000
kurtis () kurtis pp se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) writes:
Bill, How do you see the failed AMS-IX expansion fit into this? My (very simplified) summary of what happened was that : ... At the time of the origin of the discussion I was peering co-ordinator at KPNQwest, and would have pulled-out of AMS-IX if the plans (and KQ..:) ) would have moved on.
well of course i'm not bill, but (naturally) i will comment anyway. was AMS-IX planning to expand beyond its original metro and bridge all the XP switches together? if so then i understand exactly why KQ and other ISP's would have pulled out of AMS-IX in protest (and in fear). however, if the expansion was intra-metro, then i must be confused, because KQ's major source of bandwidth revenue should have been inter-metro not intra-metro. -- Paul Vixie
Current thread:
- Re: US-Asia Peering, (continued)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Bill Woodcock (Jan 09)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Neil J. McRae (Jan 10)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Stephen J. Wilcox (Jan 10)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Bill Woodcock (Jan 10)
- Re: US-Asia Peering William B. Norton (Jan 10)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Stephen J. Wilcox (Jan 11)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Paul Vixie (Jan 11)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Stephen J. Wilcox (Jan 11)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Paul Vixie (Jan 11)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Kurt Erik Lindqvist (Jan 12)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Paul Vixie (Jan 12)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Bill Woodcock (Jan 13)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Kurt Erik Lindqvist (Jan 13)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Paul Vixie (Jan 03)
- Re: US-Asia Peering William B. Norton (Jan 06)