Since my name was invoked, I'll comment, even though
I've been largely trying to stay out of this.
But the question, of course, is not that UUNET wouldn't have
connectivity to netaxs, but that it might/would have *poorer*
connectivity.
And the question is whether UUNET customers will notice, overall,
a poorer quality of service due to the disconnection.
The issue is really:
If UUNET has direct peering via the MAEs with the providers or
regionals in the DC area (MAE-East) and SF area (MAE-West), where
maybe 20-25% of the net traffic in the US flows through (to pick
a number), and a few packets start getting dropped or latency
goes up to that much of the 'net, perhaps their customers might
notice.
And then, who suffers more? It's a shame that things might
be looked at that way, but my take on it is that the equation
is cost vs. cost (as my friend Dave Van Allen would insist
that fun-loving ISPs understand and look at the business
justifications for things) -
UUNET has cost: { backbone bandwidth + engineering time +
loss of revenue by enabling other providers to be "peers"
at or near the top } for having peers that do not push
1gbit/sec inside their network and has to weight it
against vs. the { possible cost of not having as good
connectivity to N providers }
As for what happens then, who knows? Pissing wars aren't good
for anyone, so let's hope that none of them happen...
Avi