Tom DeReggi wrote:
And what message would that send? Did you expect Cogent to jsut take it
in the chin, and accept the fate LEvel3 dictated?
I disagree.
This was a peering contract dispute. I imagine Level3 was within their
rights to cancel the contract otherwise we would have seen a lawsuit. If
you read this peering contracts it is quite specific as to the rules of
the game. They state that the peering relationship can be terminated for
not satisfying the requirements of the peering policy. In Cogent's case,
that is almost always the ratio requirement.
Level3 could have bandwidth limited Cogent, instead of depeering Cogent.
That would have put Level3 in default of the peering contract most
likely. At least, when we enter into peering contract the speed is
specified.
Cogent did what they had to do. The message was loud and clear, and
successful. That Cogent would not accept being bullied.
I don't think it was. Folks that were single-homed lost business and
learned not to rely on Cogent. The folks who had learned that lesson the
last time around felt satisfied with their anti-Cogent bias. Level3 got
Cogent to do what they wanted.
Ultimately, today Cogent's peering is worse than it was before the
Level3 dispute.
-Matt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON
**
** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com **
** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT **
** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 **
** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at
http://www.ispcon.com/register.php **
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
