nanog mailing list archives
Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering
From: Daniel Senie <dts () senie com>
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 14:46:20 -0400
At 01:49 PM 10/5/2005, Matthew Crocker wrote:
So perhaps the question you should be asking is: Why didn't routes for these networks fall over to the other upstream peers which *are* capable of moving the packets? Surely MCI, AT&T, Sprint, and others would carry the packets to the right place. I can see the paths right here....They did, and I'm not down. I see Level 3 via Sprint and GNAPs/CENT just fine. I didn't lose any connectivity to Level 3 at all. Bits moving down different pipes, not a big deal to me technically.
Unless you had an outage of both your Sprint and GNAPS circuits, at which point it'd be a REALLY big deal.
I've got two upstreams, with Cogent being one of them. I'm getting L(3) through my other, but if the other were to drop, I would not have routes to L(3). Just how many links should an edge provider need to buy to ensure uninterrupted service in the event of a circuit failure? Two used to be enough if reasonably chosen.
The fact remains that Cogent is not providing the service I'm paying them for and they need to get it fixed. If that means picking up transit from another Tier 1 to get to Level 3 or making amends with Level 3 to get the existing peering working again. It doesn't matter to me, I just don't like paying for stuff I'm not getting. In the grand scheme of things I'm paying A LOT for my Cogent bandwidth (it started off as Verio remember).
I have the same concern. I'm buying transit from Cogent. I'm sure the Cogent marketing materials did sell this on the basis of it covering traffic anywhere on the Internet, whether the fine print of the contract did or not.
What nature of clause? I consider deliberately filtering prefixes or origin ASs to be a violation of common backbone BGP use. Too bad there aren't Equal Access laws for tier1s. <slyly evil grin>Ewww, I'll put up with these occasional pissing matches and build around them to avoid any government regulations.
So the edge providers either suffer, or spend a lot on lawyers to add penalty clauses to contracts for when their upstreams get in pissing matches with other backbones. Not fun either way.
Current thread:
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering, (continued)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Valdis . Kletnieks (Oct 08)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Paul Vixie (Oct 08)
- OT: Connection restored between feuding Net providers Cogent/L3 Henry Linneweh (Oct 09)
- Re: OT: Connection restored between feuding Net providers Cogent/L3 Stephen J. Wilcox (Oct 09)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Stephen J. Wilcox (Oct 09)
- How to multihome endusers [was: Cogent/Level 3 depeering] Peter Dambier (Oct 09)
- Re: How to multihome endusers [was: Cogent/Level 3 depeering] william(at)elan.net (Oct 09)
- Re: How to multihome endusers [was: Cogent/Level 3 depeering] Christopher L. Morrow (Oct 09)
- RE: Cogent/Level 3 depeering David Schwartz (Oct 06)
- Contracts (was: Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering) Deepak Jain (Oct 06)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Daniel Senie (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering James Spenceley (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Richard A Steenbergen (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Daniel Roesen (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Charles Gucker (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Daniel Roesen (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Lewis Butler (Oct 07)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Charles Gucker (Oct 07)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Patrick W. Gilmore (Oct 07)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Paul Vixie (Oct 07)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Charles Gucker (Oct 07)