Top of page 12: http://www.cogentco.com/Reports/10k_Report.pdf Doesn't refer to Sprint or anything. But this wasn't the regulation I was talking about -- I'm suggesting a public communication sent by the peered provider to its customers x days before the partitioning event occurs. This would at least give their customers some time to make alternative arrangements. Sprint's web page points out that even while it was turning down each of the peering sites one by one, several days apart, Cogent did not communicate anything to its customers about the impending last snip. Of course, it appears that Sprint didn't communicate anything to its customers, either. Frank -----Original Message----- From: Randy Epstein [mailto:repstein@chello.at] Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2008 10:50 PM To: 'Frank Bulk'; 'Rod Beck'; 'Patrick Giagnocavo'; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: routing around Sprint's depeering damage
It would be better to regulate some type of communication to customers *before* depeering occurs, much in the same way that the SEC requires publicly traded companies to communicate certain things a certain times to its shareholders.
Wait. Cogent's known about this risk factor for some time. Have they not included this in their 10-Q/K filings? Randy