nanog mailing list archives
Re: Level 3's side of the story
From: "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve () telecomplete co uk>
Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2005 21:58:55 +0100 (BST)
On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
the last two times Cogent was depeered, it responded by intentionally blocking connectivity to the network in question, despite the fact that both of those networks were Sprint customers and thus perfectly reachable under the Sprint transit Cogent gets from Verio. While no one has come forward to say if the Cogent/Verio agreement is structured for full transit or only Sprint/ATDN routes, Cogent has certainly set a precedent for intentionally disrupting connectivity in response to depeering, as a scare tactic to keep other networks from depeering them.
i dont see it like that.. and you reapply your view in your later email to me. cogent and level3 were peers. level3 want to change that, the only solution level3 will consider is for cogent to purchase transit with another provider (sprint/verio) or pay them direct. whether cogent's contract with verio could provide it transit to level3 for the same price is irrelevant. the fact is cogent currently does not use verio for this and they do not want to add a number of Gbps to their transit service theres nothing special about level3 being tier-1 and cogent being tier-2 with verio transit. the status of these networks is not of issue, both sides have a right to decide whether to connect via settlement free peering or not. of course for level3 to transit to cogent would be inconceivable to them, but thats ego / economics / marketing, not a principle of networking that either network could use transit to reach the other is an engineering point, that neither wants to pay to do so is a business point. and this is a business problem. Steve
Current thread:
- Re: Level 3's side of the story, (continued)
- Re: Level 3's side of the story Richard A Steenbergen (Oct 07)
- Re: Level 3's side of the story Richard A Steenbergen (Oct 07)
- Re: Level 3's side of the story Eric Louie (Oct 08)
- Re: Level 3's side of the story JC Dill (Oct 08)
- Re: Level 3's side of the story Leo Bicknell (Oct 08)
- Re: Level 3's side of the story Will Yardley (Oct 08)
- Re: Level 3's side of the story Richard A Steenbergen (Oct 08)
- Re: Level 3's side of the story Patrick W. Gilmore (Oct 08)
- Re: Level 3's side of the story Richard A Steenbergen (Oct 08)
- Re: Level 3's side of the story Patrick W. Gilmore (Oct 08)
- Re: Level 3's side of the story Stephen J. Wilcox (Oct 08)
- Re: Level 3's side of the story jmalcolm (Oct 09)
- Re: Level 3's side of the story James (Oct 08)
- Re: Level 3's side of the story John Curran (Oct 08)
- Re: Level 3's side of the story Patrick W. Gilmore (Oct 08)
- Re: Level 3's side of the story Matthew Crocker (Oct 08)
- Re: Level 3's side of the story Stephen J. Wilcox (Oct 08)
- Re: Level 3's side of the story Richard A Steenbergen (Oct 08)
- RE: Level 3's side of the story Rik van Riel (Oct 08)