Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts

Tue Nov 4 17:34:05 UTC 2008

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 part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 226 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20081104/af7f8c29/attachment.sig>