[109015] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Sprint / Cogent dispute over?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Vixie)
Mon Nov 3 11:51:31 2008
To: Daniel Senie <dts@senie.com>
From: Paul Vixie <vixie@isc.org>
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 16:49:18 +0000
In-Reply-To: <200811031501.mA3F1omo031556@parsley.amaranth.net> (Daniel
Senie's message of "Mon\, 03 Nov 2008 10\:01\:48 -0500")
X-Vix-MailScanner-From: vixie@isc.org
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Daniel Senie <dts@senie.com> writes:
> At 06:54 PM 11/2/2008, Daniel Roesen wrote:
>> https://www.sprint.net/cogent.php
>
> ...
>
> 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.
--
Paul Vixie
