North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Shultz" <email@example.com>
To: "Simon Lockhart" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: "NANOG list" <email@example.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 2:35 PM
Subject: Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering
Could be that a bilateral peer contract isn't being fulfilled and L3 got tired of taking the full load of the traffic. PSInet killed the peer with C&W for that very reason, regardless of what was told to the general public about it years ago. C&W simply wouldn't provision their peering OC3 so PSINet killed theirs. Without know all sides of this one, and having access to the router configs at each side, no one will be able to really say who's breaking routing or who's got an active acl up and who doesn't. Traffic flow is apparently still broken otherwise, with these two peering as they do with over tier 1's, bgp should have settled the problem as intended. My guess is that either one or even both sides may still have active static routes in place breaking bgp routing.Simon Lockhart wrote:Yes, it could have - I'm led to believe that one of the parties does purchaseOkay, here is how I see this war... which seems to be the proper term for it.
Senior Communications Systems Engineer
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments,
is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all
copies of the original message.