Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now

[Christopher Woodfield <rekoil () semihuman com>]

"...the companies have agreed to the settlement-free exchange of  
traffic subject to specific payments if certain obligations are not  
met."

So it does look like Cogent bent somwhat...I'm guessing they agreed  
to pay some sort of "traffic imbalance fee"? Anyone know of any other  
peering arrangements that have similar terms? I'll admit, that's a  
new one for me...

-C

On Oct 28, 2005, at 2:31 PM, Eric Louie wrote:

> Now, one really needs to wonder why the agreement could not be reached
> *prior* to the depeering on 10/5
>
> It's not rocket science.
>
> It's only as complex as one makes it out to be.  (one can attempt  
> to explain
> away the complexities, but they apparently were able to *finalize* an
> agreement in 3 weeks, perhaps the agreement happened in it's  
> entirety in 3
> weeks - no speculation on the agreement is required unless you have  
> nothing
> better to do)
>
> Who are the next discontent couples?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu] On  
> Behalf Of
> Jared Mauch
> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 11:08 AM
> To: nanog () merit edu
> Subject: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now
>
>
>
>     http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/051028/laf022.html?.v=27
>
>     The internet will not end on November(9)th :)
>
>     - jared
>
> --
> Jared Mauch  | pgp key available via finger from jared () puck nether net
> clue++;      | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/  My statements are  
> only mine.
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.5/150 - Release Date:  
> 10/27/2005