nanog mailing list archives
Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering
From: "Micheal Patterson" <micheal () tsgincorporated com>
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 16:12:01 -0500
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Shultz" <jeffshultz () wvi com>
To: "Simon Lockhart" <simon () slimey org> Cc: "NANOG list" <nanog () nanog org> Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 2:35 PM Subject: Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering
Simon Lockhart wrote:Yes, it could have - I'm led to believe that one of the parties does purchase transit. However, moving all that traffic over transit rather than peering would cost them a significant amount of money - and as they're running their transit service at extremely low cost, they probably would find it hard tofund the use of transit to reach the other party. SimonOkay, here is how I see this war... which seems to be the proper term for it.1. Level 3 is probably annoyed at Cogent for doing the extremely low cost transit thing, thus putting price pressures on other providers - including them. So they declared war.2. Level 3's assault method is to drop peering with Cogent, in hopes this will force Cogent to purchase transit to them in some fashion (does Level 3 have an inflated idea of their own worth?), also forcing them to raise prices and hopefully (for Level 3) returning some stability to the market.3. Cogent's counter-attack is to instead offer free transit to all single homed Level 3 customers instead, effectively stealing them (and their revenue) from Level 3... and lowering the value of Level 3 service some amount as well.4. Next move, if they choose to make one, is Level 3's. Fun. I think I'll stay in the trenches. -- Jeff Shultz
Could be that a bilateral peer contract isn't being fulfilled and L3 got tired of taking the full load of the traffic. PSInet killed the peer with C&W for that very reason, regardless of what was told to the general public about it years ago. C&W simply wouldn't provision their peering OC3 so PSINet killed theirs. Without know all sides of this one, and having access to the router configs at each side, no one will be able to really say who's breaking routing or who's got an active acl up and who doesn't. Traffic flow is apparently still broken otherwise, with these two peering as they do with over tier 1's, bgp should have settled the problem as intended. My guess is that either one or even both sides may still have active static routes in place breaking bgp routing.
-- Micheal Patterson Senior Communications Systems Engineer 405-917-0600 Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy allcopies of the original message.
Current thread:
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering, (continued)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering James (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering John Payne (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Jeff Shultz (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Joe Abley (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Joe Abley (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Mike Tancsa (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Richard A Steenbergen (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering John Curran (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Simon Lockhart (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Jeff Shultz (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Micheal Patterson (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Chris Stone (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Alex Rubenstein (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Jeff Shultz (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Justin M. Streiner (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Pete Templin (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Chris Stone (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Patrick W. Gilmore (Oct 05)
- Press Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering William Allen Simpson (Oct 06)
- Re: Press Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering JC Dill (Oct 06)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Daniel Golding (Oct 05)