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

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

  • From: Charles Gucker
  • Date: Fri Oct 07 15:53:53 2005
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=LhHnVDW/JeFRZ1gPyH2vFpSA0aoXZSbDLYAG/PeMZPq/nTHX1hFYSNkP0fU407vKwe9lE87/JB9iNrOA96YU79klZQgsIrarck3JApb85Z8bUuPthnB5FwGEZ9aJg4wwf10B4nrazOLVG/9rvrpFSJK4tlq05UTGeRrjfcauvhA=
On 07 Oct 2005 19:00:46 +0000, Paul Vixie <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [email protected] (Charles Gucker) writes:
>
> > > Ok, as I understand it, Level3 can get Cogent connectivity back
> > > simply be restoring the peering that they suspended, right?
>

First off, that's not my quote. ;-)  Second, it would appear routes
are once again beng exchanged between Level(3) and Cogent.

BGP routing table entry for 209.244.0.0/14, version 103309841
Paths: (1 available, best #1, table Default-IP-Routing-Table)
  Not advertised to any peer
  174 3356, (aggregated by 3356 4.68.0.12)
    66.28.1.1 from 66.28.1.1 (66.28.1.1)
      Origin IGP, metric 1000, localpref 100, valid, external,
atomic-aggregate, best
      Community: 174:21000 16631:1000

>From an outside view, it seems like Level(3) caved in to customer
demand, but what the true outcome is, nobody will know [publically].

charles

> that's what this press release says:
>
>         http://www.cogentco.com/htdocs/press.php?func=detail&person_id=62
>
> disclaimer-- my employer has friendly relations with both Level(3) and Cogent.
> --
> Paul Vixie
>