RE: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts

From: david raistrick (no email)
Date: Wed Nov 05 2008 - 11:54:49 EST

  • Next message: Lamar Owen: "Internet partitioning event regulations (was: RE: Sending vs requesting. Was: Re: Sprint / Cogent)"

    On Wed, 5 Nov 2008, Church, Charles wrote:

    > I didn't really care about this, but now I'm curious. Since their
    > peering was a 'trial', I'm assuming it hasn't always been there. Prior
    > to Sprint and Cogent peering directly with each other, how did they
    > communicate? Why was that functionality broken after they started
    > peering?

    They purchased transit (through NTT I believe) for connectivity to sprint.

    They removed that, because their goal has been to be transit-free.

    ---
    david raistrick        http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
                 http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
    

  • Next message: Lamar Owen: "Internet partitioning event regulations (was: RE: Sending vs requesting. Was: Re: Sprint / Cogent)"





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD