North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now

  • From: Daniel Golding
  • Date: Sat Oct 29 01:07:25 2005

On 10/28/05 7:37 PM, "Crist Clark" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Eric Louie wrote:
>> Now, one really needs to wonder why the agreement could not be reached
>> *prior* to the depeering on 10/5
>> It's not rocket science.
> As people have pointed out repeatedly, this was surely not rocket science
> since it wasn't a technical problem at all. It was a business conflict.
> It seems clear to me what probably happened. First-round negotaitions
> failed 'cause Level 3 thought Cogent was bluffing (and perhaps vice
> versa). Level 3 called the bluff, but it wasn't a bluff, and Level 3
> then blinked (or so it appears from reading between the lines of what
> I've seen). They both got back to negotiation, and with a better
> understanding of to how much pain the other willing to take to get what
> they want, this time they came out with an agreement.
> Doesn't seems mysterious.

It should. Level(3) knew that Cogent would partition. Why? Because they've
done it before, more than once. Their business model supports that strategy
(some would say, demands it). The Level(3) folks are well informed and would
certainly have anticipated this action.

The Cogent folks also knew, with a high degree of probability, that Level(3)
would carry out their threat. No one sends out a depeering letter unless
they are willing to pull the plug. Why? Because sometimes the other party
pre-empts you and downs the session before you can.

Peering is one of those things that seems very simple. On the small scale
that is correct. On the larger scale, especially when dealing with SFI
networks, the rules change and things get hairy. Things like ratios matter a
great deal when your traffic is in a zero-sum condition with ratio sensitive
SFI peers. 

Cogent is an interesting case, as their peering decisions are typically made
with more-than-ordinarily ruthlessness.
> [snip]

- Dan