|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
In-Reply-To: <67e188f60510051147r56c95823rf99227daab9bfbd@mail.gmail.com> Cc: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net> From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net> Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 15:22:05 -0400 To: nanog@nanog.org Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu On Oct 5, 2005, at 2:47 PM, Douglas Dever wrote: > On 10/5/05, Matthew Crocker <matthew@crocker.com> wrote: >> They did, and I'm not down. I see Level 3 via Sprint and GNAPs/CENT >> just fine. I didn't lose any connectivity to Level 3 at all. Bits >> moving down different pipes, not a big deal to me technically. The > > So, where's the problem, exactly? > >> fact remains that Cogent is not providing the service I'm paying them >> for and they need to get it fixed. > > Really? As you already pointed out, your packets are reaching their > destination. So, they don't "need" to get anything "fixed." > > What utter nonsense... > > *shakes head and walks away* I think you are confused. Without making value judgments or saying what L3 / Cogent _should_ do, I think Matthew is saying that he paid Cogent for connectivity to the internet. So if his GNAPS circuit dies, he does not want to be cut off from L3 end users. Right now, he has no such guarantee. Exactly which part of this do you think is nonsense? Or do you think redundant circuits only need to be partially redundant? And, making value judgments, I can say (for me personally) that if I buy transit, I also expect to get to the _whole_ Internet, at least to a few decimal places. Neither L3 nor Cogent are providing that today. -- TTFN, patrick
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |