Re: Sprint / Cogent dispute over?

From: Seth Mattinen (no email)
Date: Sun Nov 02 2008 - 22:00:53 EST

  • Next message: Justin Ream: "Re: Sprint / Cogent dispute over?"

    Martin Hannigan wrote:
    > On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 9:10 PM, Seth Mattinen <> wrote:
    >> Brandon Galbraith wrote:
    > [ snip ]
    >> I guess, if you like being affected by Cogent's peering spats on a recurring
    >> basis. Are you forgetting this is not the first time?
    > But according to Sprint, this isn't a peering spat. This is a customer
    > who didn't pay their bill.
    > Probably useful to keep that in perspective.

    Yeah, I know, but it was a trial arrangement which it turns out Cogent
    didn't meet requirements for, then didn't want to pony up the cash and
    pretended it was still settlement free peering. And I am inclined to
    believe Sprint's side of the story because Cogent likes to do this every
    so often.

    It just amazes me how some people seem to think this is the first time
    Cogent has done this. It's like they want the horrid operational impact
    it will have, cry that big bad provider X disconnected them, and people
    will come to their defense.


  • Next message: Justin Ream: "Re: Sprint / Cogent dispute over?"

    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs

    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD