The differences in the termination clauses of the two agreements make
interesting reading. If a bit dull.
In summary, for this specific network exchange's situations only:
1.) Peers may be terminated for a number of reasons (or for no reason at all,
with 30 days notice). There is of course the normal 'no transit through our
network' verbiage, and a temporary instant disconnect clause for serious
problems (clauses 5.2 and 5.3). Patrick's favorite clause will likely be
5.5, where PIE reserves the right to refuse interconnection with or without
any reason. I find it most interesting that they feel the need to enumerate
an obvious right of a provider not normally worth mentioning.
2.) Customers have more rights than peers (obviously; consideration is
changing hands). One relevant section is IV(C) of their SLA. They at least
say the tough line against spam, and a depeering notice from one of their
peers carries great weight (as it should, of course). But, in section IV(I)
PIE makes a connection guarantee. That is their right to do, obviously, but
gives the customer the right to the connection as long as the customer plays
by the rules. No arbitrary disconnect ability there, for transit customers
at least. The agreement even warrants that PIE has the authority to grant the
rights under that agreement. Interesting wording.
So if you want to be able to shut down a BGP session at a whim, you'd best
make sure your agreement you executed allows for that; or exercise your right
as a provider to refuse the customer, one or the other.
It will be interesting to see how long this link stays active. And how long
it takes for Intercage to find another upstream. Money talks.