North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts
On Nov 3, 2008, at 4:26 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Patrick W. Gilmore:
From a business perspective, one of the two parties would then be paying a third party to reach the other. In fact, a year ago this is exactly what was happening - Cogent bought partial transit from Verio to reach Sprint and AOL.
Neither believes this is in their best interest. I cannot tell you if that is true.
Doesn't this work because they are so large that any such arrangement would immediately threaten traffic ratios at the (transit-free) transit provider?
Obviously not since it was happening in the past. But you make a good point. Traffic from either of these networks is probably large enough to push at least one of the other transit-free networks over their peering ratios with someone else.
But probably not all. It is probable some transit free networks gets more traffic from Sprint than they send, so selling transit to Cogent would not hurt them. Not so sure any transit-free network pushes more to Cogent than they receive, but I cannot prove it.
And even if selling to Cogent would put them over their ratio requirements, perhaps they could negotiate a better settlement deal, so they get more from Cogent than they pay to Sprint.
Despite the fact I believe Cogent is heavy outbound to all other transit free networks, there are solutions that would allow a network to sell Sprint transit to Cogent.
It is a business problem, it has multiple business solutions.
3. Standard transit contracts do not guarantee full connectivity
"If this were true"? "Why would end users [...] buy transit from such networks"?
Please show me a transit contract - just one - that guarantees connectivity beyond the transit AS boundary.
Put another way, since _every_ network does this, if you do not want to buy from 'such networks', you cannot buy transit.
-- TTFN, patrick