[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: drais at icantclick.org (david raistrick)
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 16:54:49 +0000 (UTC)
In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <C0F2465B4F386241A58321C884AC7ECC092DCA39@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> <[email protected]>

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
drais at icantclick.org             http://www.expita.com/nomime.html

Follow-Ups:
- Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts
  - From: kraig.beahn at gmail.com (Kraig Beahn)

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)
- Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts
  - From: cchurc05 at harris.com (Church, Charles)

Prev by Date: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts
Next by Date: Internet partitioning event regulations (was: RE: Sending vs requesting. Was: Re: Sprint / Cogent)
Previous by thread: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts
Next by thread: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread