North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: AOL & Cogent

  • From: David Diaz
  • Date: Sun Dec 29 18:55:52 2002

Well, if L3 is a transit provider, would it not make sense for them to increase the peering pipes in order to bill their customers more? I am sure there are some smiles there right now.

At 20:24 -0600 12/28/02, Basil Kruglov wrote:
Speaking of this whole Cogent/AOL/Level3 mess.. sigh.

I got tired of trying getting anything out of Cogent. So, here's list of
questions perhaps someone might be able to answer.

1. I'm sure some of you are customers of Level3, and I'm sure
you do see 1-2 sec latency w/ Cogent, what's the official Level3 'position'
if/when you contact them? Do they have any plans upgrading capacity with
Cogent, what's their side of this story in general?

2. I think I asked this before, why wouldn't Cogent prepend
customer prefixes to Level3 or set BGP4 community for multihomed sites,
homed w/ Cogent + someone else.

(This is to control inbound, and please don't go into "this is not-standard
and Cogent won't do it".)

3. Did anyone suggested to Cogent to carry traffic (or some portion of it)
to AOL via MFN to offload its Level3 peering? I couldn't get any straight
answer from Cogent why this can't be done.

4. And another interesting perspective... I'm sure NDAs on peering are
involved, but anyhow -some of us don't really care about AOL that
much, assuming it is only outbound from Cogent into AOL (via Level3) that is
saturated, Cogent may try to push traffic as:

16631_174_3356_ excluding AOL' ASN(s) at one peering location

and keep saturating its Level3 peering connectivity at other locations. Any


David Diaz
[email protected] [Email]
[email protected] [Pager] [Peering Site under development]
Smotons (Smart Photons) trump dumb photons