North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering
Todd Vierling wrote:
On Wed, 5 Oct 2005, Matthew Crocker wrote:
</lurk> Maybe not, the depeering L3 is involved in is sort of like blackmail, we can all thank the indicted ex-CEO of WorldCom, Bernie Ebbers, for the modern peering "There can only be one" rule set. Big guys double dip, and little guys are paying half the big guys double dip... great deal if you can con someone into accepting it, or are big enough to -force- them into accepting it. Case in point. L3 wants CoGent to kneel, and kiss the ring, nothing more, nothing less. "They must smell blood in the water".
tier1. And a few that transit three before hitting the origin. From aFrom where I sit, I can see a plethora of routes that transit more than one
Well, we know who -your- *transit* providers are.... * cough *
So perhaps the question you should be asking is: Why didn't routes forSome providers, a legacy of course, are "transit free", and rely on direct routes.. Soon,
there won't be many of these left... and it will be a non-issue.
"There can only be *one* !" - WorldCom chant, Circa 1995.
Anyone who provides -peering-, instead of transit, actively filters routes, as SOP.What nature of clause? I consider deliberately filtering prefixes or originMost transit contracts only guarantee packet delivery to the edge of theirMost also have a clause to cover the inter-AS links, making sure that they are
Too bad there aren't Equal Access laws for tier1s. <slyly evil grin>
Like I said, light a fire, and lets burn Bernie at the stake! "I saw him fly up into the sky with the Devil himself !" * :-P (* no GOP affiliated ex-CEO's were harmed, or -actually- threatened, in the making of this post. Like FOX news, this post is classified as "Entertainment" and may or may not accurately portray actual facts.. ;-) <lurk>