Re: Level 3's side of the story

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

On Oct 8, 2005, at 5:05 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:

> Because FT and Teleglobe are both full transit customers of Sprint,  
> with
> full global routes in, and full propagation out (this is verifiable  
> via
> many looking glasses). You aren't seriously going to claim that  
> Cogent has
> a contract with Verio which says "We will give you partial transit aka
> only Sprint routes, but not Sprint routes to certain Sprint  
> customers like
> FT and Teleglobe", and that Cogent is throwing up its hands and saying
> "sorry our contract doesn't give us routes to you, Verio won't let us
> change it, what are we going to do?" are you?

Yes, I am seriously suggesting that Verio could sell 1239 +  
downstreams minus some "large" downstreams.  If I am Cogent and I  
want to get transit as cheaply as possible, I would say "don't give  
me $FOO, $BAR, $ETC, and lower your price."

Or are you seriously suggesting Cogent wouldn't do everything in its  
power to lower its costs?

Of course, "won't let us change it" is probably a bit over the top.   
I'm sure Verio will sell Cogent whatever they want.


> But while we're on the subject, how do you think Sprint feels about  
> Verio
> selling Cogent "Sprint routes only"? I of course am not privy to exact
> wording of the peering contract between Verio and Sprint (and if I  
> was I
> sure as hell wouldn't be talking about it on NANOG), but on many  
> peering
> agreements there is usually a clause that contains words like  
> "shall not
> give or sell nexthop to others". At the very least, it is down-right
> unfriendly. Verio peers with FT and Teleglobe directly already, which
> means that in order for them to send Cogent those routes via Sprint  
> (which
> Cogent now clearly still uses, 174 2914 1239 5511), they must have  
> Cogent
> directly connected on the same routers as their Sprint  
> interconnections,
> and have a virtual RIB set up, into which they import only the Sprint
> routes. That does raise some interesting questions about how the  
> contract
> is written. But I agree, we're just speculating, and I'm certain no  
> one is
> going to give us an answer publicly.

VERY interesting.  I was completely unaware that 5511 peered directly  
with 2419.

Assuming they do, WTF would Verio not simply give Cogent direct  
routes?  Well, maybe the contract only allows Verio to propagate the  
routes to Sprint?

Or <evil hat on>, Cogent wants to ensure FT pays for the traffic just  
like they have to pay for the traffic....  </evil>

--
TTFN,
patrick