Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts

From: (no name) (no email)
Date: Tue Nov 04 2008 - 12:34:05 EST

  • Next message: Larry Sheldon: "Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts"

    On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 11:09:31 EST, "Patrick W. Gilmore" said:
    > If Sprint & UUNET have a technical failure causing all peering to go
    > down, Level 3 will not magically transport packets between the two,
    > despite the fact L3 has "reliable high-bandwidth connectivity to both
    > of those providers". How would you propose L3 bill UU & Sprint for
    > it? On second thought, don't answer that, I don't think it would be a
    > useful discussion.

    You have to admit that it's probably a very tempting concept for some L3
    beancounter, unless the resulting UU<-L3->Sprint firehose is too big for
    L3's core to drink from...




  • Next message: Larry Sheldon: "Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts"





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD