North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: i think the cogent depeering thing is a myth of some kind
On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 10:00:41PM +0000, Paul Vixie wrote: [snip] > the second plain text assertion which caught my eye was: > > Why is this happening? There are a few possibilities. First, Cogent > may simply want revenue from the networks it has de-peered, in the > form of Internet transit. Of course, few de-peered networks are > willing to fork over cash to those that have rejected them. Another > possibility is that Cogent is seeing threats from other peers > regarding its heavy outbound ratios, and it seeks to disconnect > Limelight and other content-heavy peers to help balance those ratios > out. > > this makes no sense, since dan golding would know that cogent's other peers > would not be seeing traffic via cogent from the allegedly de-peered peers. The question makes no sense, since paul vixie would know that traffic pushed away has to go somewhere. Specifically traffic formerly taking the path (content net)->cogent would take (content net)->(othernets)->cogent. Given sufficent traffic analysis, one could determine some sets of (content net) entities which would *likely* deliver a known-to-cogent quantitiy of traffic over the complaining (othernets). Depending what the silly ratio gobbledegook was the basis for complaints, and how much existing (content customer)->cogent->(othernets) needs to be 'balanced', the complaining (othernets) might just be inviting their own complaints to be turned back on themselves... -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
|