[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts

Subject: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts
From: cchurc05 at harris.com (Church, Charles)
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 10:34:16 -0600
In-reply-to: <C0F2465B4F386241A58321C884AC7ECC092DCA39@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
References: <[email protected]> <C0F2465B4F386241A58321C884AC7ECC092DCA39@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>

-----Original Message-----
From: michael.dillon at bt.com [mailto:michael.dillon at bt.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 10:52 AM
To: nanog at merit.edu
Subject: RE: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts

> what you're calling a political failure could be what others 
> call a rate war. 

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?

Follow-Ups:
- Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts
  - From: drais at icantclick.org (david raistrick)

References:
- Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts
  - From: vixie at isc.org (Paul Vixie)
- Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts
  - From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com)

Prev by Date: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts
Next by Date: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts
Previous by thread: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts
Next by thread: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread