|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering
On 10/5/05, Daniel Roesen <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 02:08:01PM -0400, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > > You can only be a "tier 1" and maintain global reachability if you peer > > with every other tier 1. Level 3 is obviously the real thing, and Cogent > > is "close enough" (at least in their own minds :P) that they won't buy > > real transit, only spot routes for the few things that they are missing > > (ATDN and Sprint basically). There is no route "filtering" going on, only > > the lack of full propagation due to transit purchasing decisions, or in > > this case the lack thereof. > > Exactly. And this is why Cogent's statement to the public (and their > customers) is an outright lie. Level 3 isn't "denying Level 3's > customers access to Cogent's customers and denying Cogent's customers > access to Level 3 customers.". It's just that they deny Cogent > settlement-free direct peering anymore. Cogent can get the L3 and L3 > customer routes elsewhere if they want. But Cogent doesn't. It's Cogents > decision to break connectivity, not L3's. Oh man, I have to jump in here for a moment. Not that I agree with what happened, but to refute your claim that Cogent can get L3 elsewhere, it goes both ways. L3 can also get Cogent connectivity elsewhere. This is a big game of chicken, it will be interesting to see who backs down first. > If I would be a Cogent customer, I would have a _very_ warm word with my > sales rep why they are trying to bs me with those kind of statements and > think that I actually am dumb enough to believe that. Well, as I somewhat said above, there will always be three sides to every story. Side 1, Side 2 and the truth. Each side has a case, it's up to the lawyers now to sort it all out. charles
|