[108980] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: routing around Sprint's depeering damage
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Frank Bulk)
Mon Nov 3 00:03:49 2008
From: "Frank Bulk" <frnkblk@iname.com>
To: "'Randy Epstein'" <repstein@chello.at>,
"'Rod Beck'" <Rod.Beck@hiberniaatlantic.com>,
"'Patrick Giagnocavo'" <patrick@zill.net>, <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <5F635DFEC095463D8E312A542918E90C@D88CFA77634F40F>
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 23:03:31 -0600
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
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@chello.at]
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2008 10:50 PM
To: 'Frank Bulk'; 'Rod Beck'; 'Patrick Giagnocavo'; nanog@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
