nanog mailing list archives
Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts
From: Seth Mattinen <sethm () rollernet us>
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 09:20:22 -0800
Barrett Lyon wrote:
Incase this has not hit the list yet:http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/153194/sprint_reconnects_cogent_but_differences_are_unresolved.htmlSprint Reconnects Cogent, but Differences Are Unresolved Mikael Ricknäs, IDG News Service Monday, November 03, 2008 7:50 AM PSTOn Sunday Sprint Nextel reconnected its network with Cogent Communications after severing it earlier last week. The reconnection is only temporary, as the core issues in this dispute have not changed, Sprint said in a statement to its customers.As a result, it is again possible for Sprint customers and Cogent customers to directly communicate across the Internet. Data supplied by Keynote Systems confirms that the two networks are again communicating with each other.Sprint's view of what led up to its disconnecting from Cogent Communications on Oct. 30 differs substantially from what Cogent has stated.In shutting down the peering between the two, Sprint violated a contractual obligation to exchange Internet traffic with Cogent on a settlement-free peering basis, according to Cogent. But that's just fiction, according to Sprint, because at no time did the two enter into an actual contract.In 2006, Sprint and Cogent formed a trial agreement that ended in September last year. A three-month commercial trial indicated that Cogent didn't meet the minimum traffic exchange criteria agreed to by both parties, according to Sprint. As a result, settlement-free peering was not established, Sprint said.Instead, Sprint wants Cogent to pay for its ongoing connection to the Sprint network. But despite repeated collection attempts by Sprint, Cogent has not done that. Nonpayment on Cogent's part is the reason Sprint decided to disconnect from Cogent last week, a process that had started on Oct. 7, and shouldn't have come as a surprise for Cogent, Sprint said in its customer statement.What happens next remains to be seen. The two operators are involved in litigation over the matter. Sprint filed a lawsuit against Cogent on Sept. 2 in Fairfax County Circuit Court in Virginia for breach of contract.On its part, Cogent said it wants settlement-free peering with Sprint.
So basically, it won't be resolved until Cogent gets to keep free access to Sprint. Where's my free access to Sprint? Can I cry and scream that I have to pay for my access too because I don't qualify for free peering?
~Seth
Current thread:
- Re: "Tier 1" vs. all. Was: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts, (continued)
- Re: "Tier 1" vs. all. Was: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Marshall Eubanks (Nov 03)
- RE: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts David Schwartz (Nov 03)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Stephen Sprunk (Nov 03)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Tore Anderson (Nov 03)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Patrick W. Gilmore (Nov 03)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Tore Anderson (Nov 03)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Stephen Sprunk (Nov 03)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Will Hargrave (Nov 03)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Patrick W. Gilmore (Nov 03)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Leo Bicknell (Nov 03)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Barrett Lyon (Nov 03)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Seth Mattinen (Nov 03)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts William Herrin (Nov 03)
- RE: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Rod Beck (Nov 03)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Dave Israel (Nov 03)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Patrick W. Gilmore (Nov 03)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Joe Greco (Nov 03)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Patrick W. Gilmore (Nov 03)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Patrick W. Gilmore (Nov 04)