[109014] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Barrett Lyon)
Mon Nov 3 11:49:12 2008
From: Barrett Lyon <blyon@blyon.com>
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <20081103154932.GA95305@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 08:49:07 -0800
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Incase this has not hit the list yet:
=
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/153194/sprint_reconnects_cog=
ent_but_differences_are_unresolved.html
Sprint Reconnects Cogent, but Differences Are Unresolved
Mikael Rickn=E4s, IDG News Service
Monday, November 03, 2008 7:50 AM PST
On Sunday Sprint Nextel reconnected its network with Cogent =20
Communications after severing it earlier last week. The reconnection =20
is only temporary, as the core issues in this dispute have not =20
changed, Sprint said in a statement to its customers.
As a result, it is again possible for Sprint customers and Cogent =20
customers to directly communicate across the Internet. Data supplied =20
by Keynote Systems confirms that the two networks are again =20
communicating with each other.
Sprint's view of what led up to its disconnecting from Cogent =20
Communications on Oct. 30 differs substantially from what Cogent has =20
stated.
In shutting down the peering between the two, Sprint violated a =20
contractual obligation to exchange Internet traffic with Cogent on a =20
settlement-free peering basis, according to Cogent. But that's just =20
fiction, according to Sprint, because at no time did the two enter =20
into an actual contract.
In 2006, Sprint and Cogent formed a trial agreement that ended in =20
September last year. A three-month commercial trial indicated that =20
Cogent didn't meet the minimum traffic exchange criteria agreed to by =20=
both parties, according to Sprint. As a result, settlement-free =20
peering was not established, Sprint said.
Instead, Sprint wants Cogent to pay for its ongoing connection to the =20=
Sprint network. But despite repeated collection attempts by Sprint, =20
Cogent has not done that. Nonpayment on Cogent's part is the reason =20
Sprint decided to disconnect from Cogent last week, a process that had =20=
started on Oct. 7, and shouldn't have come as a surprise for Cogent, =20
Sprint said in its customer statement.
What happens next remains to be seen. The two operators are involved =20
in litigation over the matter. Sprint filed a lawsuit against Cogent =20
on Sept. 2 in Fairfax County Circuit Court in Virginia for breach of =20
contract.
On its part, Cogent said it wants settlement-free peering with Sprint.
