[85410] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Level 3's side of the story
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael Loftis)
Sat Oct 8 19:22:40 2005
Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 17:20:24 -0600
From: Michael Loftis <mloftis@wgops.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <43470129.4090001@greendragon.com>
X-MailScanner-From: mloftis@wgops.com
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
--On October 7, 2005 7:13:45 PM -0400 William Allen Simpson
<wsimpson@greendragon.com> wrote:
>
> Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
>> http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/1
>> 0-07-2005/0004164041&EDATE=
>>
>> "On October 6, Level 3, as it had repeatedly advised Cogent it would,
>> terminated free traffic exchange with Cogent. Because Internet users,
>> apparently without notice from Cogent and through no fault of their own,
>
> I don't remember seeing this public notice from Level(3) posted....
> Wouldn't that be "without notice from Level(3)"?
Why is it (3)'s responsibility to handle Cogent's customers? It isn't. If
that was the case we'd be required to notify all downstream's when we
terminate on default of contract or other reasons (as an ISP).
No I think if (3) told Cogent then they did their job. It's absurd to say
that (3) was responsible for public notice of Cogent's customers or
anything of that nature. That's a Cogent internal matter that they screwed
up, or intentionally withheld.
