Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts

From: Patrick W. Gilmore (no email)
Date: Mon Nov 03 2008 - 21:04:26 EST

  • Next message: Matthew Petach: "Re: routing around Sprint's depeering damage"

    On Nov 3, 2008, at 8:16 PM, George William Herbert wrote:
    > Patrick writes:
    >> 3. Standard transit contracts do not guarantee full connectivity
    >> If you are a Cogent customer, it is very unlikely your contract will
    >> allow you SLA or other credits for not being able to reach Sprint
    >> unless you negotiated something special. I doubt Sprint's standard
    >> contract is much different. Transit contract SLAs end at AS
    >> boundaries. This is because Network A has no control over Network B
    >> and therefore will not give credit if Network B fails. Of course,
    >> you
    >> can still sue, threaten to terminate, etc., but the letter of the
    >> contract almost certainly says nothing about packets going beyond
    >> your
    >> transit provider's ASN.
    > I am not aware of any major content provider who still has
    > any agreements in place that don't say anything about routing
    > past the provider's network.

    Content hosting != transit

    > Some weren't paying any attention when they signed up initially
    > and didn't get the specific provisions. But once bitten by such,
    > renewals Do Not Happen without additional clauses being inserted.
    > I don't rule out there still being such agreements, but I think that
    > anyone with a clue and enough traffic to think about multihoming
    > has been exposed to this and should have insisted on some legal
    > protection about best-effort to route to rest of world. It never
    > fails to impress me how many people have little clue, though...

    "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity."


  • Next message: Matthew Petach: "Re: routing around Sprint's depeering damage"

    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs

    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD