North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Level 3's side of the story
On Oct 7, 2005, at 7:13 PM, William Allen Simpson wrote:
Every peering agreement I have seen includes an NDA. Most certainly notified Cogent, and almost certainly had no legal right to issue a press release.http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/ story/10-07-2005/0004164041&EDATE=
I note that connecting to Cogent after November 9th will still give you only partial transit to the Internet - in fact, far less of the Internet than connecting to Level 3. (Despite Cogent's claims otherwise.)have been impacted, Level 3 has, effective immediately, re- established a free connection to Cogent. In order to allow Internet users to make alternative arrangements,Splendid, that gives the world sufficient time to accept Cogent's offer
Is there any particular reason you think Level 3 will buy transit? Or that they give a rat's ass what tier _you_ think they are?we will maintain this connection until 6:00 a.m. ET, November 9, 2005. The effectiveness of this arrangement of course depends on Cogent's willingness to maintain their side of the traffic exchange.
Perhaps Cogent will have had time to buy transit?
Or perhaps - just perhaps - the Internet will be bifurcated for the time being. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with an Internet which isn't fully connected. Each business will work out its own business needs and use the transit provider(s) they see fit.
I am a bit confused about why so many people think this is such a bad thing. Personally, I believe there is room in the market for partial transit providers. I guess that theory is about to be tested.