Sprint / Cogent dispute over?
dts at senie.com
Mon Nov 3 09:01:48 CST 2008
At 06:54 PM 11/2/2008, Daniel Roesen wrote:
>On Sun, Nov 02, 2008 at 04:40:20PM -0500, Randy Epstein wrote:
> > Problem resolved?
Reading this accounting of Sprint's side of the story reveals
something that's not too surprising about Sprint. They've got serious
The trial of peering they talk about was for three months in 2007,
ending in September 2007. They claim to have billed Cogent at the end
of it, though knowing Sprint's billing (having had them fail to send
me bills, then hit me with late fees) they probably can't prove that.
But this is a YEAR later.
They let an account linger for a year without collecting or
terminating the services provided. That's their own damned fault.
This indicates poor management of Accounts Receivable. That's your
problem, Sprint, deal with it.
Also in this document is a complaint that Cogent failed to
disconnect. Excuse me? This was a trial PEERING agreement. That
implies one or a series of point-to-point connections. That implies
EITHER party can disconnect the circuits (in reality, the physical
circuit doesn't even matter, just shut down the BGP session(s)).
So Sprint failed to manage Accounts Receivable and left this
"temporary" circuit in place too long. Some bean counter noticed this
a year later. Way to go Sprint.
As I've noted previously, Sprint hurt its own customers by the action
taken. It's my guess they restored the circuit to avoid further
damage to themselves that resulted from their actions.
It's interesting to see a biased, "blame Cogent first" mentality in
so many postings on NANOG. Maybe they deserve it, maybe not. But
after reading the traffic here, after living through the consequences
of the Cogent/L3 depeering, and after reading what Sprint said on
their page, my read on this is that Sprint's accounting department
might need some house cleaning.
More information about the NANOG