[109070] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Tue Nov 4 12:35:47 2008
To: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 04 Nov 2008 11:09:31 EST."
<5559A8A3-60C8-4692-BDBD-2D5B990EABB4@ianai.net>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 12:34:05 -0500
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1225820045_3700P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 11:09:31 EST, "Patrick W. Gilmore" said:
> If Sprint & UUNET have a technical failure causing all peering to go
> down, Level 3 will not magically transport packets between the two,
> despite the fact L3 has "reliable high-bandwidth connectivity to both
> of those providers". How would you propose L3 bill UU & Sprint for
> it? On second thought, don't answer that, I don't think it would be a
> useful discussion.
You have to admit that it's probably a very tempting concept for some L3
beancounter, unless the resulting UU<-L3->Sprint firehose is too big for
L3's core to drink from...
--==_Exmh_1225820045_3700P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFJEIeNcC3lWbTT17ARAhdYAJ4kxRjZQ755BPMAt9g4cwJ6TW08YwCdFxuo
GRtRdIM649B1rxzXIGKoN6M=
=dfy8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1225820045_3700P--
