[99603] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: i think the cogent depeering thing is a myth of some kind
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Vixie)
Fri Sep 28 20:17:39 2007
From: Paul Vixie <paul@vix.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:24:34 -0400."
<01a201c80226$bbe1cf50$3301a8c0@D3M1BS91>
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 00:07:21 +0000
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
"Randy Epstein" <repstein@chello.at> wrote:
> Clearly you can see the article was published by T1R in their Daily T1R
> report: http://www.t1r.com/
>
> (listed under "The Daily T1R Headlines")
>
> If you subscribe to the Daily T1R, you can find Dan's report issued today.
"Sorry, T1R.com requires Flash 8 or above: Get Flash"
> I think Dan overstepped here. Richard has made comments of a de-peering
> notice received by nLayer, not an actual de-peering occurrence.
ok.
> AFAIK, the only two networks in recent weeks that have been de-peered are WV
> Fiber and LimeLight. WV was de-peered a couple on September 17th and
> LimeLight was de-peered yesterday.
it's still really hard to believe that dan golding, of all people, could have
written text that makes it seem as though traffic from one set of cogent's
peers would be seen as input from cogent by another set of cogent's peers.
i'll take your word for it, since you've got "Flash 8 or above", and i havn't.
are any of the de-peering letters online someplace?
