nanog mailing list archives
Re: sat-3 cut?
From: William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson () gmail com>
Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2009 22:09:49 -0400
Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 08/08/2009 18:09, William Allen Simpson wrote:Not in a long time. My memory is that SAT-3 was supposed to be a nice cooperative effort funded by the nations themselves, rather than an outside investor. With cooperation, I'd have expected good peering.Indeed, it is a co-operative affair owned by several of the incumbent telcos along the route, and one suspects that they engage in all of the sort of benevolent, community-focussed behaviour that you'd expect from incumbents.
Oh, neither of us are talking about benevolence. If you and I have a joint venture, then I'd expect we'd have no problem with interconnection.
On a more serious note, and peering / interconnection arrangements aside, the cable fault indicates a critical lack of resilience on the west coast of africa.
True. Does NANOG have an outreach and construction program? If not, it's probably not on-topic....
Current thread:
- Re: sat-3 cut? Randy Bush (Aug 07)
- Re: sat-3 cut? William Allen Simpson (Aug 08)
- Re: sat-3 cut? William Allen Simpson (Aug 08)
- Re: sat-3 cut? Nick Hilliard (Aug 09)
- Re: sat-3 cut? William Allen Simpson (Aug 09)
- Re: sat-3 cut? Randy Bush (Aug 09)
- Re: sat-3 cut? Eric Brunner-Williams (Aug 09)
- Re: sat-3 cut? William Allen Simpson (Aug 10)
- Re: sat-3 cut? Steven M. Bellovin (Aug 10)
- Re: sat-3 cut? Randy Bush (Aug 10)
- Re: sat-3 cut? bmanning (Aug 10)
- Re: sat-3 cut? Martin Hannigan (Aug 10)
- Re: sat-3 cut? Nick Hilliard (Aug 10)
- Re: sat-3 cut? Joel Jaeggli (Aug 10)
- Re: sat-3 cut? William Allen Simpson (Aug 08)
- Re: sat-3 cut? Joe Provo (Aug 10)