[150919] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: did AS174 and AS4134 de-peer?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Wed Mar 7 18:34:17 2012
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: <20CA91EF-62E5-4282-97A2-3AE8C6B39938@foobar.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 18:33:21 -0500
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mar 7, 2012, at 18:29 , Nick Hilliard wrote:
> =08On 7 Mar 2012, at 23:19, Darius Jahandarie <djahandarie@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 17:55, Greg Chalmers <gchalmers@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>>>=20
>>> Isn't this journalism a bit yellow? No facts / based on =
speculation..
>>>=20
>>> - Greg
>>=20
>> Now all they need to do is link back to this NANOG thread as a =
source.
>=20
> That would be very irresponsible. Otoh, if someone updated the tier1 =
network page on Wikipedia first...
There is no change to the list. Cogent still does not have transit. =
Cogent sees CT through Sprint (a peer) because CT pays Sprint for =
transit.
OTOH, Jim did say in his blog post: "This disconnection will increase =
China Telecom's transit costs...." This assumes facts not in evidence, =
namely that the CT <-> Sprint pipes were not full before the de-peering =
incident.
--=20
TTFN,
patrick
