On Mar 7, 2012, at 18:29 , Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 7 Mar 2012, at 23:19, Darius Jahandarie <djahandarie@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 17:55, Greg Chalmers <gchalmers@gmail.com> wrote:
Isn't this journalism a bit yellow? No facts / based on speculation..
- Greg
Now all they need to do is link back to this NANOG thread as a source.
That would be very irresponsible. Otoh, if someone updated the tier1 network page on Wikipedia first...
There is no change to the list. Cogent still does not have transit. Cogent sees CT through Sprint (a peer) because CT pays Sprint for transit. OTOH, Jim did say in his blog post: "This disconnection will increase China Telecom's transit costs...." This assumes facts not in evidence, namely that the CT <-> Sprint pipes were not full before the de-peering incident. -- TTFN, patrick