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

Re: Level 3's side of the story

  • From: Matthew Crocker
  • Date: Sat Oct 08 15:11:48 2005 




Level 3 claims Cogent is sending far more traffic than Level3 to
Cogent.

Thus, Level3's viewpoint is that Cogent relies on them more than
they rely

on Cogent. Thus, it no longer makes sense in their view point to
maintain

a free interconnection as there is no similar balance of traffic
ratio.





This has always bugged me. Is a Cogent customer sending traffic to
a L3 customer or is a L3 customer requesting the traffic from a
Cogent customer? Traffic is traffic, L3 has eyeballs, Cogent has
content producers. Of course most of the traffic will flow from
Cogent -> L3. L3 chose to sell to eyeball customers, Cogent chose to
sell to content producers. If the L3 customers didn't create the
demand for the traffic then I'm sure Cogent wouldn't be sending them
the traffic.



IMHO the only valid complaint L3 has is wether Cogent is hot-potato
routing the traffic causing L3 to 'incur more cost'. That should all
be spelled out in the peering agreement.



--

Matthew S. Crocker

Vice President

Crocker Communications, Inc.

Internet Division

PO BOX 710

Greenfield, MA 01302-0710

http://www.crocker.com