Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

["Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net>]

On Oct 5, 2005, at 5:01 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 03:51:34PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>
> > I think you and I have a different definition of "deny" and  
> > "decision".
> >
> > Cogent was connected to L3.  Level 3 TOOK ACTIVE STEPS to sever that
> > relationship.  Cogent, this moment, has their routers, ports, and
> > configurations ready, willing, and able to accept and send packets to
> > and from L3.
> >
> > Please explain to me why you think Cogent is the bad actor here?
>
> At this moment I stand ready willing and able to accept free
> interconnection from L3. If I then ask my transit providers to
> intentionally block announcement of L3 routes so that they are
> unreachable, is it L3's fault that they don't give me free peering?

There is a difference between not doing something and doing  
something.  L3 does not currently peer with you.  Not peering with  
you tomorrow does not take action on their part.  Shutting down links  
does.

Does this make L3 bad?  Of course not.  But neither does it make  
Cogent bad.  (Which you know since you read my whole post, right?)   
However, it does make L3 the instigator of the disconnectivity.


> It takes two to tango, and what we have here is two participants  
> who are
> both very willing to make certain the other side in unreachable while
> pointing fingers at the other party for their half of the mess. A more
> honest position would be to man up and say "yes we broke half of the
> connectivity, they broke the other half, and we're going to stay  
> like this
> until someone gives". But then again when has honesty ever been a  
> part of
> marketing?

Honestly, RAS, you are spouting more marketing than I am.

L3 BROKE THE CONNECTIVITY.  Not half of it, all of it.  Cogent may or  
may not have done things which precipitated this action.  But L3 took  
the steps.  If you want to stay away from marketing, don't muddy the  
waters with things like "we broke half".


As an L3 customer, I am upset that I cannot reach Cogent.  As a  
Cogent customer I am upset I cannot reach L3.  But that's not "blame"  
in the peering sense, that's just me upset over paying money for  
services not rendered.

As an "objective NANOG poster", I do not know who is at fault.  Not  
even sure I care.  If there even is one.  Am I "at fault" for not  
wanting to talk to you?  Aren't I allowed to decide to whom I speak  
and whom I avoid?


On balance, this is bad for the Internet.  No matter who is at fault,  
the Internet is less useful than it was.  Even if Cogent buys transit  
to get to L3, it will still be less useful than it was.  Connectivity  
will be less robust, which hurts all of us.

Sad day for the Internet.  But we'll get over it.

--
TTFN,
patrick