North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

  • From: Daniel Senie
  • Date: Wed Oct 05 15:36:40 2005 
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.