From owner-freebsd-isp Sat Dec 21 20:06:29 1996 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id UAA17183 for isp-outgoing; Sat, 21 Dec 1996 20:06:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns2.harborcom.net (root@ns2.harborcom.net [206.158.4.4]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id UAA17178 for ; Sat, 21 Dec 1996 20:06:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from swoosh.dunn.org (swoosh.dunn.org [206.158.7.243]) by ns2.harborcom.net (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id XAA10476; Sat, 21 Dec 1996 23:06:23 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 23:01:51 -0500 () From: Bradley Dunn To: David Greenman cc: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: UUNET vs Netcom In-Reply-To: <199612220338.TAA21948@root.com> Message-ID: X-X-Sender: bradley@harborcom.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-isp@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Sat, 21 Dec 1996, David Greenman wrote: > CRL peers with Sprint at the PB-NAP to avoid congestion that Sprint has > at MAE-west (and probably for other reasons, such as load balancing their > own circuits). Last time I looked, MCI peered with Sprint on the west coast > through a dedicated circuit. CRL also peers at mae-west: 3 sl-chi-6-F0/0.sprintlink.net (144.228.50.6) 13.410 ms 19.669 ms 13.291 ms 4 144.228.10.54 (144.228.10.54) 52.305 ms 52.294 ms 57.106 ms 5 sl-stk-1-F/T.sprintlink.net (198.67.6.1) 53.130 ms 57.866 ms 59.603 ms 6 sl-mae-w-H3/0-T3.sprintlink.net (144.228.10.110) 55.692 ms 68.072 ms 55.365 ms 7 T3-CRL-SFO-01-H1/0.US.CRL.NET (198.32.136.10) 72.085 ms 141.506 ms 230.938 ms Much better than when it all went over the CIX, though. Yes, basically at every exchange point city MCI + Sprint have a private interconnect to bypass the XPs. -BD