North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now
On 10/28/05 5:45 PM, "JC Dill" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Christopher Woodfield wrote: >> >> "...the companies have agreed to the settlement-free exchange of >> traffic subject to specific payments if certain obligations are not met." >> >> So it does look like Cogent bent somwhat...I'm guessing they agreed to >> pay some sort of "traffic imbalance fee"? > > There are other possibilities. > > Maybe they agreed to pay a transit fee should they fail to carry the L3 > user's requested traffic as far as possible before handing it off (cold > potato routing) and hand it off at the earliest possibility (hot potato > routing) leaving L3 to backhaul it across the L3 network to the user who > requested the data. I doubt it. Cold potato is normally the first thing Cogent offers in a situation like this. I'm guessing this went something beyond that. Cogent would have offered cold potato well before the original depeering. I have no specific information, but I'm guessing there is a per-mbps charge that kicks in at certain ratio levels. Or, there may be a flat "port charge" per month under certain conditions - Sprint did this many years ago. > > Etc. > > jc > I'm having a bit of trouble figuring out Level(3)'s goal in all this. A bit of incremental revenue? For all of this trouble? I could understand feeling that Cogent's ratios are a violation of their peering requirements and depeering them on principle, but if that's the case, why back down for a little cash? Of course, various external pressures may have been brought to bear on Level(3). Customers, regulators, press, creditors, etc. - Dan
|