North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering
On Oct 6, 2005, at 9:11 AM, Daniel Golding wrote:
I think you are confused. If Cogent pays Verio to receive (for instance) only 1239 prefixes, and to propagate 174 prefixes only to 1239, then Cogent cannot "make a configuration change" to fix things. It would require a contractual change.Since you demanded it - Cogent buys transit. Regardless of what their routeCogent does purchase transit from Verio to Sprint, AOL, and other locations (but not to Level 3). Perhaps Dan would like to explain why that is relevant to the discussion at hand? Or why that puts the "ball" in Cogent's court?
But even if they could, why does this put the onus only on Cogent? Cogent has just as much right to not spend money to reach L3 as L3 has to not spend money to reach Cogent.
Perhaps we are miscommunicating. I am not saying Cogent should not buy transit to reach L3. It is a business decision, not a technical argument. I am saying your idea of "Cogent buys transit, therefore the ball is in Cogent's court" is Just Plain Wrong. The "ball" is in _both_ of their "courts".
If you think the inverse of the above is also true, we agree.Sure. Cogent is free to offer a partial routing table and take their chancesIt is strange that people have to be reminded no network has the "right" to use any other network's resources without permission. Most people realize this in one direction. For instance, the "tier ones" love to point out Cogent has no "right" to peer with Level 3. Absolutely correct. What some people seem to forget is that Level 3 has no right to force Cogent to buy transit to get to Level 3.
However, you posts have absolutely at least implied (and I would argue outright claim) that L3 should not be expected to do anything because they are in the "SFI club", and Cogent should do something because they "buy transit".
Perhaps we do agree more than I thought. Did I misunderstand your comments about SFI and balls and courts and stuff? Do you think this situation is bilateral, or does one side have more responsibility to ensure interconnectivity than the other?