Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering (philosophical solution)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("David Schwartz") writes: > My point is simply that the "your customers are getting more out of > our network that our customers are" argument is bull. Your customers are > paying you to carry their traffic over your network. whenever you think you have a reasonable desi

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering (philosophical solution)

Peering Ratios? It is very timely that the upcoming NANOG Peering BOF X in Los Angeles will have a debate on this very subject: Traffic Ratios - a valid settlement metric or dinosaur from the dot.bomb past. I'm sure the strongest arguments from these threads will be clearly articulated (in a bul

RE: Cogent/Level 3 depeering (philosophical solution)

> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("David Schwartz") writes: > > I think the industry simply needs to accept that it's more > > expensive to receive traffic than to send it. > It is? For everybody? For always? That's a BIG statement. Can > you justify? In those cases where it in fact is and

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering (philosophical solution)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("David Schwartz") writes: > I think the industry simply needs to accept that it's more > expensive to receive traffic than to send it. It is? For everybody? For always? That's a BIG statement. Can you justify? > ... > The question is whether the benefit to eac

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 20:41:55 BST, "Stephen J. Wilcox" said: > > my rule would be if your provider can manage an autonomous system better > > than > > you and multihoming isnt a requirement of your business then let them take > > on > > the manage

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

> I'm willing to bet there's a lot of single-homed customers of both Cogent > and L3 that 2 weeks ago didn't think multihoming was a requirement of > their business either, who now are contemplating it. Plus possibly some > single-homed customers of other large providers as well. any ISP likely

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

> >> Take-away: Do not single home. ... > > > > so, CIDR was a bad idea, and we should push forward with one AS per > > end-site and a global routing table of 500 million entries? > > I think that's unnecessarily one dimensional. The needs of business to > be connected in a reliable fashion are

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 20:41:55 BST, "Stephen J. Wilcox" said: > my rule would be if your provider can manage an autonomous system better than > you and multihoming isnt a requirement of your business then let them take on > the management I'm willing to bet there's a lot of single-homed customers

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Daniel Golding wrote: > On 10/6/05 10:37 AM, "Patrick W. Gilmore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 6, 2005, at 10:19 AM, tony sarendal wrote: > > > >> This is not the first and certainly not the last time we see this kind > >> of event happen. > >> Purchasing a s

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering (philosophical solution)

On Oct 8, 2005, at 7:02 AM, David Schwartz wrote: Various people have stated that uneven data flows (e.g. from mostly-content networks to mostly-eyeball networks) is a good reason to not peer. I think the industry simply needs to accept that it's more expensive to receive traffic th

RE: Cogent/Level 3 depeering (philosophical solution)

> Various people have stated that uneven data flows (e.g. from > mostly-content networks to mostly-eyeball networks) is a good reason to > not peer. I think the industry simply needs to accept that it's more expensive to receive traffic than to send it. So yes, Cogent sends Level 3 more

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

On Oct 7, 2005, at 11:54 AM, Paul Vixie wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Daniel Golding) writes: Take-away: Do not single home. I'm shocked folks aren't figuring this out. If you are a webhoster or enterprise and your business model can not support multiple Internet pipes, than you have a subopt

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

Yeah, we just noticed the same.. BGP routing table entry for 38.0.0.0/8, version 23735501 Paths: (3 available, best #1, table Default-IP-Routing-Table) Flag: 0x220 Advertised to peer-groups: core Advertised to non peer-group peers: 64.39.2.107 212.100.225.49 3356 174, (received & used)

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

On 07 Oct 2005 19:00:46 +, Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charles Gucker) writes: > > > > Ok, as I understand it, Level3 can get Cogent connectivity back > > > simply be restoring the peering that they suspended, right? > First off, that's not my quote. ;-) Seco

Re: Peering vs SFI (was Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Schliesser, Benson") writes: > > If it's still common for one to be billed only for "highest of in > > vs. out" then there's no way to compare the benefits since there's > > always a "shadow" direction and it won't be symmetric among flow > > endpoints. > > Thank you, Paul. I

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charles Gucker) writes: > > Ok, as I understand it, Level3 can get Cogent connectivity back > > simply be restoring the peering that they suspended, right? that's what this press release says: http://www.cogentco.com/htdocs/press.php?func=detail&person_id=62 discla

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Daniel Golding) writes: > Take-away: Do not single home. I'm shocked folks aren't figuring this out. > If you are a webhoster or enterprise and your business model can not support > multiple Internet pipes, than you have a suboptimal business model (to put > it lightly) so, CI

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

At 01:37 PM 10/7/2005, you wrote: On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Daniel Golding wrote: > Take-away: Do not single home. I'm shocked folks aren't figuring this out. > If you are a webhoster or enterprise and your business model can not support > multiple Internet pipes, than you have a suboptimal busine

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

On Oct 7, 2005, at 11:31 AM, Daniel Golding wrote: Take-away: Do not single home. I'm shocked folks aren't figuring this out. If you are a webhoster or enterprise and your business model can not support multiple Internet pipes, than you have a suboptimal business model (to put it lightly)

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

On Oct 7, 2005, at 12:56 PM, Charles Gucker wrote: Simply put, yes. Longer answer, Level(3) would have to "kiss and make up" with Cogent before the sessions would be coordinated to be turned up. There would certainly have to be a renewed level of communication between these two networks t

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Daniel Golding wrote: > Take-away: Do not single home. I'm shocked folks aren't figuring this out. > If you are a webhoster or enterprise and your business model can not support > multiple Internet pipes, than you have a suboptimal business model (to put > it lightly) Or "sin

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 02:53:02AM -0600, Lewis Butler wrote: > > On 05 Oct 2005, at 13:44 , Charles Gucker wrote: > >Oh man, I have to jump in here for a moment. Not that I agree with > >what happened, but to refute your claim that Cogent can get L3 > >elsewhere, it goes both ways. L3 can also

RE: Peering vs SFI (was Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering)

Paul Vixie wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Schliesser, Benson") writes: > >> Would you care to speculate on which party receives the greater benefit: >> the sender of bytes, or the receiver of bytes? >> >> If both the sender and receiver are being billed for the traffic by >> their respective (diff

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 22:54:37 PDT, JC Dill said: > I also believe that Cogent has a valid argument that Level 3's behavior > is anti-competitive in a market where the tier 1 networks *collectively* > have a 100% complete monopoly on the business of offering transit-free > backbone internet servi

RE: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

> What is "Internet"? Let's channel Seth Breidbart briefly and call it > the largest equivalence class in the reflexive transitive symmetric > closure of the relationship "can be reached by an IP packet from". It > should be clear that the nature and extent of this network depends > very

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

*Leo Bicknell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >If you don't have enable on a router, and you've never negotiated peering with a transit free ISP then you're not qualified to comment. >You really don't understand what's going on here, and it's not, I repeat, not a technical problem. There is nothing wron

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

On 10/6/05 10:37 AM, "Patrick W. Gilmore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Oct 6, 2005, at 10:19 AM, tony sarendal wrote: > >> This is not the first and certainly not the last time we see this kind >> of event happen. >> Purchasing a single-homed service from a Tier-1 provider will >> guarante

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

On 10/6/05 10:30 AM, "Randy Bush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Is being a tier-1 now a good or bad sales argument when >>> selling internet access ? >> Its a great sales argument. That's why everyone claims to be >> one. It just sounds SO good. And its not like the Peering >> Police are going t

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

In a message written on Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 10:40:50AM -0400, Lamar Owen wrote: > Yes, you would be correct. Which offers an interesting thought: why would > it be important for you then but not now? If the issue impacts your > customers, then why not spend the 3 minutes reconfiguring your rout

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

> In a message written on Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 06:36:00PM -0400, Lamar Owen > wrote: >> All philosophy aside, it does bother me that a simple single depeering >> can >> cause such an uproar in a network supposedly immune to nuclear war (even >> though the Internet was not designed from the start

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 03:17:53AM -0400, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 10:54:37PM -0700, JC Dill wrote: > > AFAICT there's only one reason to break off peering, and it's to force > > Cogent to pay (anyone) to transit the data. Why does L3 care if Cogent > > sends the d

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

Jay Adelson wrote: On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 01:29:06AM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: You also forgot that Providers A & B have to pay cab fare to get to those geographically dispersed corners. One might have to take the cab a lot longer than the other, incurring more time & money. Y

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 01:29:06AM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > You also forgot that Providers A & B have to pay cab fare to get to > those geographically dispersed corners. One might have to take the > cab a lot longer than the other, incurring more time & money. > > You also forgot .

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, JC Dill wrote: > Alex Rubenstein wrote: > > > Further, the internet has always been a best-effort medium. > > Can someone please explain how Level 3 is making a "best effort" to connect > their customers to Cogent's customers? thats not what alex means as you know. and Leve

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

On 05 Oct 2005, at 13:44 , Charles Gucker wrote: Oh man, I have to jump in here for a moment. Not that I agree with what happened, but to refute your claim that Cogent can get L3 elsewhere, it goes both ways. L3 can also get Cogent connectivity elsewhere. This is a big game of chicken, it wi

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, tony sarendal wrote: > On 06/10/05, Patrick W. Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Oct 6, 2005, at 10:19 AM, tony sarendal wrote: > > > > > This is not the first and certainly not the last time we see this kind > > > of event happen. > > > Purchasing a single-homed s

RE: Peering vs SFI (was Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering)

> Would you care to speculate on which party receives the greater benefit: > the sender of bytes, or the receiver of bytes? Nope! I'll let the economists argue about that question. Probably on some other list where people know a lot more about the issue of "value" than on this list. --Michael

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, JC Dill wrote: to pay (anyone) to transit the data. Why does L3 care if Cogent sends the data for free via peering, or pays someone ELSE to transit the data? Anything to increase a competitors spending must be good, right? The more expenses a competitor has, the higher t

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 10:54:37PM -0700, JC Dill wrote: > > Various people have stated that uneven data flows (e.g. from > mostly-content networks to mostly-eyeball networks) is a good reason to > not peer. I'd love to know how it improves Level 3's network to have > data from Cogent arrive

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

Alex Rubenstein wrote: Further, the internet has always been a best-effort medium. Can someone please explain how Level 3 is making a "best effort" to connect their customers to Cogent's customers? Various people have stated that uneven data flows (e.g. from mostly-content networks to mos

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

On Oct 7, 2005, at 1:17 AM, Silver Tiger wrote: Provider A has host/service/user traffic that we will call "Blue Bricks" that need to be moved outside their network. Provider B has host/service/user traffic that we will call "Red Bricks" that need to be moved outside their network.. Both

RE: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

Benson  Schliesser wrote:>Michael Dillon wrote:>> P.S. would the Internet be worse off if all traffic >.> exchange was paid for and there was no settlement>> free interconnect at all? I.e. paid peering, paid>> full transit and paid partial transit on the menu?>Would you care to speculate on which

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

On Oct 6, 2005, at 8:32 PM, Niels Bakker wrote: * [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Deepak Jain) [Fri 07 Oct 2005, 02:29 CEST]: I think Cogent's offer of providing free transit to all single homed Level3 customers is particularly clever and being underpublicized. I wouldn't be surprised if Cogent is in m

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

On 6-Oct-2005, at 19:38, Schliesser, Benson wrote: Customers don't want to pay for a "stochastic set of relationships", they will pay for the "Internet" however. What is "Internet"? Let's channel Seth Breidbart briefly and call it the largest equivalence class in the reflexive transitive s

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

I guess a significant part of the single-homed networks behind Level(3) would be in PA space owned by them, and thus will find the initial step towards multihoming very hard to take (renumbering into PI or their own PA space). Its absolutely a high bar. It is no higher than changing prov

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Deepak Jain) [Fri 07 Oct 2005, 02:29 CEST]: I think Cogent's offer of providing free transit to all single homed Level3 customers is particularly clever and being underpublicized. I wouldn't be surprised if Cogent is in more buildings than Level3 with a high degree of over

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

If you don't have enable on a router, and you've never negotiated peering with a transit free ISP then you're not qualified to comment. You really don't understand what's going on here, and it's not, I repeat, not a technical problem. There is nothing wrong with the technology, architecture, or

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

In a message written on Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 06:36:00PM -0400, Lamar Owen wrote: > All philosophy aside, it does bother me that a simple single depeering can > cause such an uproar in a network supposedly immune to nuclear war (even > though the Internet was not designed from the start to survive

RE: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

Customers don't want to pay for a "stochastic set of relationships", they will pay for the "Internet" however. Perhaps we have lied to the them? The internet has always been a stochastic set of relationships -- some relationships of which are based upon two people getting drunk together at

RE: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

> I would think in NANOG that one would know the simple fact that 'The Complete > Internet' is complete and utter fiction, and does not exist. What does exist > is a complex, dynamic, even stochastic set of relationships between > autonomous networks, who can pick and choose their relationshi

Re: Peering vs SFI (was Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Schliesser, Benson") writes: > Would you care to speculate on which party receives the greater benefit: > the sender of bytes, or the receiver of bytes? > > If both the sender and receiver are being billed for the traffic by > their respective (different) service providers (a

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

On Wednesday 05 October 2005 15:52, JC Dill wrote: > Matthew Crocker wrote: > > Ok, I *pay* Cogent for 'Direct Internet Access' which is IP Transit > > service. I *cannot* get to part of the internet via Cogent right now. [snip] > > *not* providing complete Internet access, I really don't care

RE: Peering vs SFI (was Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering)

Michael Dillon wrote: > P.S. would the Internet be worse off if all traffic > exchange was paid for and there was no settlement > free interconnect at all? I.e. paid peering, paid > full transit and paid partial transit on the menu? Would you care to speculate on which party receives the greate

Contracts (was: Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering)

There is another point here. For anyone signing contracts where the buyer has significant bargaining power with the seller, you can specifically stipulate that connectivity to the seller's network is not-good-enough to save them from paying an SLA event or indeed breaching the contract. (What

RE: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

> On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 19:27:24 PDT, David Schwartz said: > > Level 3 cut of Cogent's connectivity. Until and unless they > > give some > > reason that makes sense, they are no longer making the effort > > and are not > > part of the internet. > If I had a garden, things would grow *so* wond

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

On Oct 6, 2005, at 2:57 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 01:59:01PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: You are mistaken. If I sent 100 Gbps outbound and 20 inbound, I can sell 40-60 Gbps of additional inbound for FAR, FAR less than 40-60 Gbps of additional outbound. Ze

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 01:59:01PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > > You are mistaken. > > If I sent 100 Gbps outbound and 20 inbound, I can sell 40-60 Gbps of > additional inbound for FAR, FAR less than 40-60 Gbps of additional > outbound. > > Zero cost? Probably not. Trivial cost? P

Re: Fw: Peering vs SFI (was Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: P.S. would the Internet be worse off if all traffic exchange was paid for and there was no settlement free interconnect at all? I.e. paid peering, paid full transit and paid partial transit on the menu? This assumes that one party wants to receive the bits more than

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

On Oct 6, 2005, at 2:47 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: Inbound traffic doesn't cost them anything? That old adage only applies to end user transit purchasers who have doing extra outbound and thus have "free inbound" under the "higher of in or out" billing. For folks operating an actual n

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 01:33:38PM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > > It's more likely someone skimps on connections they pay per meg for than > peering links, therefore it's in my expereience more likely to be > uncongested on peering links than transit links. Sometimes yes, sometimes. no.

Re: Press Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

William Allen Simpson wrote: Finally, some press taking notice: http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=4531 More at:

Press Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

Finally, some press taking notice: http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=4531 -- William Allen Simpson Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

On 06/10/05, Patrick W. Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Oct 6, 2005, at 10:19 AM, tony sarendal wrote: > > > This is not the first and certainly not the last time we see this kind > > of event happen. > > Purchasing a single-homed service from a Tier-1 provider will > > guarantee that yo

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

On Oct 6, 2005, at 10:19 AM, tony sarendal wrote: This is not the first and certainly not the last time we see this kind of event happen. Purchasing a single-homed service from a Tier-1 provider will guarantee that you are affected by this every time it happens. s/every time it happens/eve

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

>> Is being a tier-1 now a good or bad sales argument when >> selling internet access ? > Its a great sales argument. That's why everyone claims to be > one. It just sounds SO good. And its not like the Peering > Police are going to enforce it. What does it mean in real > life? Nothing. Nada. An

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, tony sarendal wrote: > > On 06/10/05, Stephen J. Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, tony sarendal wrote: > > > > > Is being a tier-1 now a good or bad sales argument when selling internet > > > access ? > > > > its the same as it always was, its a marke

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

On 06/10/05, Stephen J. Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, tony sarendal wrote: > > > Is being a tier-1 now a good or bad sales argument when selling internet > > access ? > > its the same as it always was, its a marketing positive. but thats because the > market is dumb. > >

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

On Oct 6, 2005, at 9:11 AM, Daniel Golding wrote: Cogent 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? Since you dema

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, tony sarendal wrote: > Is being a tier-1 now a good or bad sales argument when selling internet > access ? its the same as it always was, its a marketing positive. but thats because the market is dumb. if you wish to make your purchasing decision on 'tier-1' status thats up

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

On 10/6/05 6:43 AM, "tony sarendal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Is being a tier-1 now a good or bad sales argument when selling > internet access ? Its a great sales argument. That's why everyone claims to be one. It just sounds SO good. And its not like the Peering Police are going to enf

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

On 10/6/05 1:41 AM, "Patrick W. Gilmore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Oct 5, 2005, at 4:13 PM, Daniel Golding wrote: > >> They can. Cogent has transit and is preventing traffic from >> traversing its >> transit connection to reach Level(3). Level(3) does not have >> transit - they >> are i

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

--- "Patrick W. Gilmore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It 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

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, tony sarendal wrote: Is being a tier-1 now a good or bad sales argument when selling internet access ? Personally I think it's good strategy to multihome with one "tier-1" and one not so "tier-1". The ones further down the foodchain are more likely to be "peering whores"

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

> Depeering never makes sense to me. Customers of both companies are > expecting their vendor to connect them to the customers of the other > company. These customers are each paying their respective vendor for > this service. Why should one vendor pay the other for this traffic that > is

Fw: Peering vs SFI (was Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering)

> Time to quote Geoff Huston one more time. > > "A true peer relationship is based on the supposition that either party > can terminate the interconnection relationship and that the other party > does not consider such an action a competitively hostile act. If one > party has a high reliance o

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

Is being a tier-1 now a good or bad sales argument when selling internet access ? -- Tony Sarendal - [EMAIL PROTECTED] IP/Unix -= The scorpion replied, "I couldn't help it, it's my nature" =-

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 11:15:58PM -0700, william(at)elan.net wrote: > > That reminds me. If you remember the whole thing started with that L3 > complains that Cogent is trying to steal its customers. I kind of checked > and it appears Cogent is after dialup/dsl/cable ISPs who as you can > guess

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 19:27:24 PDT, David Schwartz said: > Level 3 cut of Cogent's connectivity. Until and unless they give some > reason that makes sense, they are no longer making the effort and are not > part of the internet. If I had a garden, things would grow *so* wonderfully next year

RE: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

> Now Cogent is also offering free transit for single-homed > L3 customers to spite L3 after depeering - majority of such > single-homed > transit customers are in fact these dsl/dialup ISPs Cogent is after > which is why they were willing to make this offer ... Didn't the free peering offer ha

RE: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Hannigan, Martin wrote: The dialup case results in a very large number of users of a large number of ISPs being single-homed to one or the other of these outfits. Keep that in mind too when you next sign a contract for wholesale dialup service. Dialup costs are $5 a month

RE: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

> You say that as if the only move to be made is on Cogent's > side. What > about L3? If every L3 customer complained to L3, demanded service > credits, claimed the contract was in default, and swore to never buy > from L3 again, maybe L3 would budge instead. > How is this relevant again

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

On Oct 5, 2005, at 4:13 PM, Daniel Golding wrote: They can. Cogent has transit and is preventing traffic from traversing its transit connection to reach Level(3). Level(3) does not have transit - they are in a condition of settlement free interconnection (SFI). The ball is in Cogent's cour

RE: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

= > The dialup case results in a very large number of users of a large > number of ISPs being single-homed to one or the other of these > outfits. Keep that in mind too when you next sign a contract for > wholesale dialup service. Dialup costs are $5 a month or less wholesale. What do you exp

RE: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

> At 10:46 PM 10/5/2005, you wrote: > > >ok, vijay popping up is not totally surprising, but twice? > >dorian was a bit of a surprise. but you, joe? coming out of > >the woodwork? the lack of clue in this thread must be *really* > >painful. > > It's pretty evident that this has been a clue-f

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

At 10:46 PM 10/5/2005, you wrote: ok, vijay popping up is not totally surprising, but twice? dorian was a bit of a surprise. but you, joe? coming out of the woodwork? the lack of clue in this thread must be *really* painful. It's pretty evident that this has been a clue-free thread... even

RE: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

At 5:32 PM -0400 10/5/05, Hannigan, Martin wrote: > > >> Just curious - Has this activity impacted voice services for > > anyone, and/or has either opened a FCC NORS report? > >Why could you open a NORS unless it's impacting LD and meet-me minutes? As of 3 Jan 2005, cable telephony outages of >30

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

ok, vijay popping up is not totally surprising, but twice? dorian was a bit of a surprise. but you, joe? coming out of the woodwork? the lack of clue in this thread must be *really* painful. 96 messages in the thread since 11:30 gmt, and maybe one screen worth of hard content, vjay's quote of

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

On Oct 5, 2005, at 10:25 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Daniel Golding writes: They can. Cogent has transit and is preventing traffic from traversing its transit connection to reach Level(3). Level(3) does not have transit - they are in a condition of settlement free interconnection (SFI). T

RE: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

> Without making value judgments or saying what L3 / Cogent _should_ > do, I think Matthew is saying that he paid Cogent for connectivity to > the internet. So if his GNAPS circuit dies, he does not want to be > cut off from L3 end users. Right now, he has no such guarantee. > > Exactly which p

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

Daniel Golding writes: >They can. Cogent has transit and is preventing traffic from traversing its >transit connection to reach Level(3). Level(3) does not have transit - they >are in a condition of settlement free interconnection (SFI). The ball is in >Cogent's court. This is not the first time o

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 04:51:12PM -0700, JC Dill wrote: > > Depeering never makes sense to me. Customers of both companies are > expecting their vendor to connect them to the customers of the other > company. These customers are each paying their respective vendor for > this service. Why s

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

Alex Rubenstein wrote: 2. Level 3's assault method is to drop peering with Cogent, in hopes this will force Cogent to purchase transit to them in some fashion (does Level 3 have an inflated idea of their own worth?), also forcing them to raise prices and hopefully (for Level 3) returning some

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 02:17:09PM -0700, David Sinn wrote: > > So this is all well and good while some measure of V6 is tunneled, but > one should be wondering what these games of chicken mean to V6 when it > is native. Given that most organizations won't meet the qualifications > to be mult

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

James Spenceley wrote: Then start your search for a replacement provider. If every Cogent and Level3 customer did this today, this problem would be solved by the end of the week, guaranteed. I tend to think this is oversimplification. The big picture risk, cogent will be judged now by

Re: Peering vs SFI (was Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering)

Sean Butler wrote: "There can only be *one* !" - WorldCom chant, Circa 1995. WorldCom didn't know what IP SFI was in 95. Perhaps you mean UUNET/MFS? Or, perhaps I mean Alternet, eh ? - A Rose by any other name Or if you change "1995" above to "1997," which was when UUNET

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

1. Level 3 is probably annoyed at Cogent for doing the extremely low cost transit thing, thus putting price pressures on other providers - including them. So they declared war. Is this wrong? Two sides: a) cogent is directly responsible for the accelerated pace of transit pricing errosion

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

On Oct 5, 2005, at 6:35 PM, Chris Stone wrote: Just got off the phone with Cogent - no real resolution in sight. They say they have escalated this to their CEO (about damned time!), but do not expect resolution today anyway. I guarantee you he knew before the links went dark. Support is

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

On 10/5/05, Patrick W. Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Oct 5, 2005, at 2:47 PM, Douglas Dever wrote: > > > On 10/5/05, Matthew Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> They did, and I'm not down. I see Level 3 via Sprint and GNAPs/CENT > >> just fine. I didn't lose any connectivity to

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

Just got off the phone with Cogent - no real resolution in sight. They say they have escalated this to their CEO (about damned time!), but do not expect resolution today anyway. They have issued a press release which can be found at http://telephonyonline.com/home/news/cogent_level_3_100505/ f

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

On Wednesday 05 October 2005 03:12 pm, Micheal Patterson wrote: > 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 Cog

  1   2   >