<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Backbone-News &#187; AS1239</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.backbone-news.com/tag/as1239/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.backbone-news.com</link>
	<description>Covering Technology, Outages, News and Events</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2008 22:25:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Sprint-Nextel: The reason for the de-peering</title>
		<link>http://www.backbone-news.com/2008/10/31/sprint-nextel-the-reason-for-the-de-peering/</link>
		<comments>http://www.backbone-news.com/2008/10/31/sprint-nextel-the-reason-for-the-de-peering/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Oct 2008 21:52:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Service Provider]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AS1239]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AS174]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cogent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Peering]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sprint-Nextel]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.backbone-news.com/?p=47</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As we wrote earlier, Cogent and Sprint-Nextel are in the midst of a peering dispute. Slowly more details are appearing which gives us a better view on what happened and ended in the disconnection. Both companies entered a peering agreement in November 2006. According to the information posted by The Register, Sprint confirms that this [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As we wrote earlier, Cogent and Sprint-Nextel are in the midst of a peering dispute. Slowly more details are appearing which gives us a better view on what happened and ended in the disconnection. Both companies entered a peering agreement in November 2006. According to the <a title="The Register" href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/31/congent_sprint_spat/" target="_blank">information</a> posted by <em><a title="The Register" href="http://www.theregister.co.uk" target="_blank">The Register</a></em>, Sprint confirms that this was purely a trial agreement, and Cogent does actually not fulfill all of the requirements defined in that agreement, in particular in regards of traffic levels exchanged between the two networks.<br />
Matthew Sullivan (Sprint) told <em>The Register</em>: &#8220;Cogent failed to satisfy the peering criteria that was laid out in the agreement and refused to pay Sprint to stay connected to our network&#8221;.  Cogent does not agree to the financial compensations defined in the agreement, and as a consequence, after a long period of discussions and giving Cogent advance notice of the plan, Sprint-Nextel deactivated the connections and end the agreement.</p>
<p>The view from Cogent is rather different. Dave Schaeffer (CEO, Cogent) is quoted at <em>The Register</em>: &#8220;We were notified by Sprint that they wished to change the method of measuring utilization&#8221; and &#8220;We protested and explained that this was in violation of the agreement.&#8221;</p>
<p>Both companies are currently at curt over this issue, which will certainly not help in a fast resolution of the issue.</p>
<p>Update: Om Malik (<a title="GigaOM" href="http://gigaom.com" target="_blank">GigaOM</a>) has also picked the story up in a <a title="GigaOM: Cogent-Sprint" href="http://gigaom.com/2008/10/30/cogent-sprint-un-peer-may-cause-web-slowdown/" target="_blank">blog post</a> and provides some further information.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.backbone-news.com/2008/10/31/sprint-nextel-the-reason-for-the-de-peering/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
