|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Sprints definition on NAPs (question)
IMHO, it is a fair statement that these peers face great uncertainty. There should not be any loss of connectivity as their transit provider should take care of business. -- Enke > Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 09:14:44 -0400 (EDT) > From: Nathan Stratton <[email protected]> > To: Jeremy Porter <[email protected]> > CC: [email protected], [email protected] > On Wed, 1 May 1996, Jeremy Porter wrote: > > > >|} > the Sherman Act (if memory serves). These types of problems can be q uite > > >|} > 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? > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|