nanog mailing list archives
Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering
From: Daniel Roesen <dr () cluenet de>
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 23:11:05 +0200
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".
I agree that my usage of words was highly suboptimal to express what I wanted to express. See my other answer.
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.
Yes, but Cogent actively risked that that this happens, and L3 did only took active steps to sever that DIRECT relationship, but does (AFAIK) nothing to prevent connectivity _at_all_ (which Cogent IMHO does claim). They just make it more costly for Cogent. Cogent doesn't want to pay the price, so no connectivity. OF COURSE L3 could start to buy transit... but as a real tier 1 they are prolly in the position that they won't need to. A real tier 1 depeering another tier 1 would be a completely different story though. :-)
Please explain to me why you think Cogent is the bad actor here?
I wouldn't say "bad actor". The current situation is just the result of L3 playing out their tier 1 card, and Cogent not being a tier 1 but not wanting to buy more transit. Given that Cogent was not yet on the same "eye level" (no pun intended) with Level 3, I as a hypothetical Cogent customer would blame Cogent to not having made provisions for that case. Again, I said that from the perspective of a Cogent customer knowing "the hierarchy" out there. Of course, there are shades of grey between black and white.
By your logic, Level 3 is denying customers access to Cogent because they are perfectly capable of buying transit from Verio.
L3 is tier 1, Cogent is tier 2. L3 tries to make the gap larger. Cogent doesn't want to get the L3 routes via their transit Verio.
If so, L3 probably feels their decision to terminate the peering relationship is on sound moral, ethical, and financial ground.
I'm not sure wether "moral" and "ethics" are significant factors in such peering battles (anymore)... especially with such offer like Cogent's to L3 customers. Anyway, I knew it was a mistake to post right after I sent it off. I hate peering politics (having worked for a former tier 1 and being losely involved into peering stuff there made me a burned kid), and I should firmly stay out of (doing and discussing) it - especially in a language which isn't my native one. :-( Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr () cluenet de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
Current thread:
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering, (continued)
- 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)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Tom Sands (Oct 07)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Patrick W. Gilmore (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Daniel Roesen (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Richard A Steenbergen (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Patrick W. Gilmore (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Richard A Steenbergen (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Patrick W. Gilmore (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering John Payne (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering sigma (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Micheal Patterson (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering John Payne (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Richard Irving (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Richard A Steenbergen (Oct 05)