Sprint / Cogent dispute over?
vixie at isc.org
Mon Nov 3 10:49:18 CST 2008
Daniel Senie <dts at senie.com> writes:
> At 06:54 PM 11/2/2008, Daniel Roesen wrote:
> 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)).
Not having read the contract in question, my assumption when I read Sprint's
account of their depeering of Cogent was that the trial peering contract says
"Sprint will notify Cogent of its qualification status after 90 days; if in
Sprint's estimation Cogent does not qualify, and Sprint notifies Cogent of
that fact, then Cogent will either disconnect or start paying." Sprint's
document's wording is careful even if their <TITLE> is not. If they are
involved in litigation with Cogent then actual lawyers would have seen that
text (if not necessarily the <TITLE>) before it went out. The heart of the
lawsuit might be whether Cogent did or didn't implicitly agree to pay, as
signalled by their lack of disconnection after their 90 day notice. None of
us who aren't parties to the dispute can do other than wonder, ponder, guess.
More information about the NANOG