> I am not a quantum physist (among many things I am not) but it would seem
> that two is too many--the likelyhood that they would always be exactly equal
> is vanishingly small (Heisingberg might insist it is impossible in principle)
> and as soon as the become unequal one (both?) disappear.Ok, can someone tell me if I've fully understood this thread on peering agreements?
ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL
BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERSUm, I mean ... s/ANIMALS/PROVIDERS
In either case, I believe (in a Darwinian sense) that some behaviours are
good survival tactics, some are not. "equality" is seldom mentioned
in the stuff I read as a survival tactic.
My guess is (and since it is a pretty big stretch to call me an ISP--I
do play one in local theater, it only a guess) that the better survival
tactic (better than worrying about "transit" and "peering") would involve
concepts like "providing services will pay money for at a rate larger
than I have to pay for them".