[109110] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Church, Charles)
Wed Nov 5 11:36:04 2008
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 10:34:16 -0600
In-Reply-To: <C0F2465B4F386241A58321C884AC7ECC092DCA39@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
From: "Church, Charles" <cchurc05@harris.com>
To: <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
-----Original Message-----
From: michael.dillon@bt.com [mailto:michael.dillon@bt.com]=20
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 10:52 AM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: RE: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts
> what you're calling a political failure could be what others=20
> call a rate war.=20
I didn't really care about this, but now I'm curious. Since their
peering was a 'trial', I'm assuming it hasn't always been there. Prior
to Sprint and Cogent peering directly with each other, how did they
communicate? Why was that functionality broken after they started
peering?
