nanog mailing list archives
Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts
From: Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 12:34:05 -0500
On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 11:09:31 EST, "Patrick W. Gilmore" said:
If Sprint & UUNET have a technical failure causing all peering to go down, Level 3 will not magically transport packets between the two, despite the fact L3 has "reliable high-bandwidth connectivity to both of those providers". How would you propose L3 bill UU & Sprint for it? On second thought, don't answer that, I don't think it would be a useful discussion.
You have to admit that it's probably a very tempting concept for some L3 beancounter, unless the resulting UU<-L3->Sprint firehose is too big for L3's core to drink from...
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- RE: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts, (continued)
- RE: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Tomas L. Byrnes (Nov 04)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Patrick W. Gilmore (Nov 04)
- RE: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts michael.dillon (Nov 04)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Paul Vixie (Nov 05)
- RE: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts michael.dillon (Nov 05)
- RE: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Church, Charles (Nov 05)
- RE: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts david raistrick (Nov 05)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Kraig Beahn (Nov 06)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Lamar Owen (Nov 04)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Niels Bakker (Nov 04)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Valdis . Kletnieks (Nov 04)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Larry Sheldon (Nov 04)