North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Level 3's side of the story
--On October 7, 2005 7:13:45 PM -0400 William Allen Simpson <[email protected]> wrote:
Why is it (3)'s responsibility to handle Cogent's customers? It isn't. If that was the case we'd be required to notify all downstream's when we terminate on default of contract or other reasons (as an ISP).Richard A Steenbergen wrote:http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/1 0-07-2005/0004164041&EDATE= "On October 6, Level 3, as it had repeatedly advised Cogent it would, terminated free traffic exchange with Cogent. Because Internet users, apparently without notice from Cogent and through no fault of their own,I don't remember seeing this public notice from Level(3) posted.... Wouldn't that be "without notice from Level(3)"?
No I think if (3) told Cogent then they did their job. It's absurd to say that (3) was responsible for public notice of Cogent's customers or anything of that nature. That's a Cogent internal matter that they screwed up, or intentionally withheld.