routing around Sprint's depeering damage

Frank Bulk frnkblk at iname.com
Sun Nov 2 23:03:31 CST 2008


Top of page 12:
http://www.cogentco.com/Reports/10k_Report.pdf

Doesn't refer to Sprint or anything.

But this wasn't the regulation I was talking about -- I'm suggesting a
public communication sent by the peered provider to its customers x days
before the partitioning event occurs.  This would at least give their
customers some time to make alternative arrangements.  Sprint's web page
points out that even while it was turning down each of the peering sites one
by one, several days apart, Cogent did not communicate anything to its
customers about the impending last snip.  Of course, it appears that Sprint
didn't communicate anything to its customers, either.

Frank

-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Epstein [mailto:repstein at chello.at] 
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2008 10:50 PM
To: 'Frank Bulk'; 'Rod Beck'; 'Patrick Giagnocavo'; nanog at nanog.org
Subject: RE: routing around Sprint's depeering damage

>It would be better to regulate some type of communication to customers
>*before* depeering occurs, much in the same way that the SEC requires
>publicly traded companies to communicate certain things a certain times to
>its shareholders.

Wait.  Cogent's known about this risk factor for some time.  Have they not
included this in their 10-Q/K filings?

Randy






More information about the NANOG mailing list