North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering
On Oct 5, 2005, at 5:11 PM, Daniel Roesen wrote:
Yes, but Cogent actively risked that that this happens, and L3 did onlyThis is silly.
"I don't buy transit, but you buy partial transit, so if I shut down the interconnection links (SFI or otherwise), you should buy more transit to get to me." HUH? B does not in any way follow A.
This is no different than MCI de-peering Sprint. Both sides knows what will happen long before they do it.
I'm very confused by what you said there. WTF has "the hierarchy" got to do with my bits getting to you?Given that Cogent was not yet on the same "eye level" (no pun intended) with Level 3, I as a hypothetical Cogent customer would blame Cogent to not having made provisions for that case. Again, I said that from the perspective of a Cogent customer knowing "the hierarchy" out there.
Better question: As a "hypothetical Level 3 customer", would you blame Cogent or L3?
"Tier One" is marketing. Even the technical idea of "buys no transit" is BS. It might be well defined, but that doesn't make the term _useful_.
Cogent and L3 had _no_ interconnectivity besides the direct peering relationship. L3 knew it, Cogent knew it. L3 made a decision to sever that direct relationship, and bifurcation ensued. This was not only not a surprised, it was expected. Whether Cogent is a "tier one" or not is irrelevant to the decision, and the resulting effects.
When you can't reach the web / mail / etc. server you need, does it matter if your network is big or small, tier one or tier five? Not to me, I'm just interested in getting packets from point A to point B. From your posts, it sounds like you are OK with buying partial transit at full price - as long as you buy it from a "Tier One" provider.