North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: C&W Peering
Uh. Why are you yelling at PSI when you have failed to do your own calculations? Perhaps they have taken data from archive.route-views.org to determine what the actual loss of connectivity was. I don't have the time to go out and validate the PSINet claims of how much of the net is gone for them and their (single-homed) customers. Perhaps someone who is more of a data processing person can go out and provide some interesting data, such as Number of ASNs single-homed (based on route-views data) Top 5/10/20/25 providers based on as-path Number of networks/ips/ASNs behind each of those top 5/10/20/25 that would be missing connectivity. - Jared On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 07:55:14PM -0400, Christopher A. Woodfield wrote: > > THE UNITED STATES and Offnet Connectivity > Cable & Wireless chose to terminate connectivity with > PSINet on 2June01. Over 90% of the traffic that used > to be routed through C&W is now being routed via other means > through our robust global free peering infrastructure. > The remaining 10% or so represents C&W customers that have > been deliberately cut off from PSINet by C&W. While PSINet > is ready and willing to re-establish connectivity with > C&W at any time, it is up to C&W to choose to reverse their > previous decision. In the meantime, PSINet can offer > services directly to those C&W customers that are affected. > > OK, PSI seems to assert that 90% of C&W networks are still accessable from > PSI customers. NANOG research so far has determined that this is > definitely *not* the case. If anyone has evidence to support PSI's claim, > please post. > > Dear PSI: this may not be directly your fault, but dammit, own up to the > scope of the issue. It's in your interest to take advantage of being the > "good guy" for once, so don't ruin it by lying about the scope of the > problem. > > I don't think that this is going to be solved by C&W reversing themselves; > I think PSI is going to have to get itself some transit, and quickly. > > -C > > > On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 04:18:48PM -0700, John Starta wrote: > > > > See PSINet's network status page (http://www.psi.com/cgi-bin/netstatus.pl5) > > for a possible answer. > > > > jas > > > > At 06:22 PM 6/4/01 -0400, Vivien M. wrote: > > >I suppose now PSI gets to learn the hard way what happens when they scared > > >half their peers away (to be polite...), and now find that a bunch of the > > >other half are now turning down their PSI peering links. (BTW, has it been > > >established here whether PSI or CW is to blame for this?) > > > > -- > --------------------------- > Christopher A. Woodfield [email protected] > > PGP Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xB887618B -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from [email protected] clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
|