Re: did AS174 and AS4134 de-peer?

2012-03-08 Thread Eric
+1 - Eric On Mar 7, 2012, at 7:37 PM, Michael Sinatra wrote: > On 03/07/12 16:10, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: >> On Mar 7, 2012, at 19:06 , Jim Cowie wrote: >> >>> As a meta-comment: this "Quick Look" style of blog is an experiment we're >>> trying, based on feedback that the community wanted t

Re: did AS174 and AS4134 de-peer?

2012-03-07 Thread Michael Sinatra
On 03/07/12 16:10, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: On Mar 7, 2012, at 19:06 , Jim Cowie wrote: As a meta-comment: this "Quick Look" style of blog is an experiment we're trying, based on feedback that the community wanted to hear about more of these little events as they happen. In a Quick Look, we

Re: did AS174 and AS4134 de-peer?

2012-03-07 Thread Patrick W. Gilmore
On Mar 7, 2012, at 19:06 , Jim Cowie wrote: > As a meta-comment: this "Quick Look" style of blog is an experiment we're > trying, based on feedback that the community wanted to hear about more of > these little events as they happen. In a Quick Look, we're giving the facts > as they are known

Re: did AS174 and AS4134 de-peer?

2012-03-07 Thread Jim Cowie
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > On Mar 7, 2012, at 18:29 , Nick Hilliard wrote: > > On 7 Mar 2012, at 23:19, Darius Jahandarie > wrote: > >> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 17:55, Greg Chalmers > wrote: > >>> > >>> Isn't this journalism a bit yellow? No facts / based on specu

Re: did AS174 and AS4134 de-peer?

2012-03-07 Thread Patrick W. Gilmore
On Mar 7, 2012, at 18:29 , Nick Hilliard wrote: > On 7 Mar 2012, at 23:19, Darius Jahandarie wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 17:55, Greg Chalmers wrote: >>> >>> Isn't this journalism a bit yellow? No facts / based on speculation.. >>> >>> - Greg >> >> Now all they need to do is link back to

Re: did AS174 and AS4134 de-peer?

2012-03-07 Thread Nick Hilliard
On 7 Mar 2012, at 23:19, Darius Jahandarie wrote: > On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 17:55, Greg Chalmers 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 irrespo

Re: did AS174 and AS4134 de-peer?

2012-03-07 Thread Darius Jahandarie
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 17:55, Greg Chalmers wrote: > On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Jim Cowie wrote: >> http://www.renesys.com/blog/2012/03/cogent-depeers-china-telecom.shtml >> >> cheers,   --jim >> > > > Isn't this journalism a bit yellow? No facts / based on speculation.. > > - Greg Now all

Re: did AS174 and AS4134 de-peer?

2012-03-07 Thread Greg Chalmers
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Jim Cowie wrote: > On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 2:23 AM, John van Oppen >wrote: > > > All - > > > > I was noticing that it appears from our Seattle-based full route feed > from > > cogent that they may have de-peered AS4134 (or vise-versa)... anyone > know > > anythin

Re: did AS174 and AS4134 de-peer?

2012-03-07 Thread Jim Cowie
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 2:23 AM, John van Oppen wrote: > All - > > I was noticing that it appears from our Seattle-based full route feed from > cogent that they may have de-peered AS4134 (or vise-versa)... anyone know > anything about this?We noticed this recently in a shift of traffic away >

did AS174 and AS4134 de-peer?

2012-03-06 Thread John van Oppen
All - I was noticing that it appears from our Seattle-based full route feed from cogent that they may have de-peered AS4134 (or vise-versa)... anyone know anything about this?We noticed this recently in a shift of traffic away from cogent for traffic to and from china telecom... Now cog