Subject: RE: GCI and PEER Network
jsaam@mcc-cpa.com
Date: Tue Dec 18 2001 - 09:36:14 AKST
Yeah I suppose my post was a little over-done.. I was just mad. I can see
how ISP's in the lower 48 would not want to do it, but they don't "have" to
do it. The people down there don't have to "hop" quite as far as we have to
when forced to route through Seattle.
It just plain sux. So I guess it's pick and choose your ISP -- wether you
want ACS Customers to use your server, or GCI -- hehe.. Why can't they all
just get along?
-----Original Message-----
From: Leif Sawyer [mailto:lsawyer@gci.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 8:04 AM
To: Jon Saam
Subject: RE: GCI and PEER Network
Well, My take on it would be that it's not in a business's best interest.
This has been hashed over and rehashed so many times before -- you might
want to check the archives.
But the summary of it all boils down to the ISP mentality of "Make them come
to us if they want our content" which EVERY ISP has. There's just no
rational business logic to support a local peering point.
My opinion's, not my employers.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jsaam@mcc-cpa.com [mailto:jsaam@mcc-cpa.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 5:30 PM
> To: aklug@aklug.org
> Subject: GCI and PEER Network
>
>
> A little off subject, but important topic --
>
> Anyone know why GCI doesn't want to allow a Peer Network (local loop)
> between local ISP's? I'm kinda pissed now that I can't get a decent
> ping on my server here (hosted via t-1 by TelAlaska) when I'm @ home
> on cable. Ha..
> in fact, I can set a computer on the cable modem, right next
> to the computer
> on the T-1, and I still get 200+ pings.. hehe.. that totally sux :)
>
> Comments? <also, check out GCI forum for posts related to this>
>
> Jon
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a23 : Tue Dec 18 2001 - 09:37:48 AKST