Martin Hannigan wrote:
On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 9:10 PM, Seth Mattinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Brandon Galbraith wrote:
[ snip ]
I guess, if you like being affected by Cogent's peering spats on a recurring
basis. Are you forgetting this is not the first time?
But according to Sprint, this isn't a peering spat. This is a customer
who didn't pay their bill.
Probably useful to keep that in perspective.
Yeah, I know, but it was a trial arrangement which it turns out Cogent
didn't meet requirements for, then didn't want to pony up the cash and
pretended it was still settlement free peering. And I am inclined to
believe Sprint's side of the story because Cogent likes to do this every
so often.
It just amazes me how some people seem to think this is the first time
Cogent has done this. It's like they want the horrid operational impact
it will have, cry that big bad provider X disconnected them, and people
will come to their defense.
~Seth
