Cogent <=> Google Peering issue

Wed Feb 17 18:07:46 UTC 2016

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Todd Underwood <toddunder at gmail.com> wrote:
> let me try to be more concrete and helpful:
>
> lots of people who work at google *and* at cogent are on this list.
> none of them are doing anything to look at anything right now b/c
> there are no facts in evidence yet.
>

happy to help or find a local person to help ...

> if you want help with something or want to verify something, provide a
> time, a date, a path, a fact, a traceroute, a flow, a log entry a
> clue.
>

if there's more data :(

> cheers,
>
> t
>
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 11:54 AM, jim deleskie <deleskie at gmail.com> wrote:
>> They haven't been since at least the mid 90's :)
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Nick Hilliard <nick at foobar.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Todd Underwood wrote:
>>> > Can you scope "issue" with any facts or data?
>>>
>>> are facts or data strictly necessary on the nanog mailing list?
>>>
>>> Nick
>>>
>>> > T
>>> > On Feb 17, 2016 11:16, "Fred Hollis" <fred at web2objects.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Anyone else aware of it?
>>> >>
>>>
>>