[c-nsp] Routing Problem - MCI/GT/Level3 - Puzzled

[Paul Stewart]

Actually, I should have worded my email better... I understand and agree
with what you are saying... makes total sense unfortunately.... we were just
surprised how *much* difference that makes...

We have Level(3) as well and don't see that same effect...;)

Take care,

Paul
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Gert Doering [mailto:gert at greenie.muc.de] 
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 2:01 PM
To: Paul Stewart
Cc: 'John van Oppen'; 'Pete Templin'; cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Routing Problem - MCI/GT/Level3 - Puzzled

Hi,

On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 08:17:44AM -0500, Paul Stewart wrote:
> Yes, AS701 for us here in North America...:)  We have known that GT 
> has a lot of peers and have done a great job in that respect...
> 
> We're just surprised that MCI doesn't have "reach" given their sheer 
> size in comparison....

You misunderstand.  If MCI has a lot more *peers*, while GT has *upstreams*,
other provider will prefer GT to MCI, because they get money from GT - and
not from MCI.

So the problem is not "MCI not big enough" but "GT being too small".

gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
 
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany
gert at greenie.muc.de
fax: +49-89-35655025
gert at net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de