From: Richard A Steenbergen (no email)
Date: Thu Apr 14 2005 - 12:27:39 EDT
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 11:28:00AM -0400, wrote:
> Richard,
>
> Its easy to accuse people of criminality - that's what you just did. How
> about some proof?
>
> Cogent's ratios are very very bad. That's why some people don't like
> peering with them. Being sent to sales is a common, if regretable tactic
> in depeering. However, dealing with Cogent on peering matters is
> incredibly unpleasant. I can understand networks and peering
> coordinators feeling that it just isn't worth it.
No, you got me wrong. I wasn't suggesting that anyone was doing anything
criminal. I was suggesting that Cogent was now so large that if any of the
folks who were pissed off at Cogent's disruptive pricing actually wanted
to make an impact against them, they would need to get together and take
action collectively.
Teleglobe tried to depeer them, but ended up needing Savvis to transit the
bits to maintain global reachability, which cost them a pretty penny while
costing Cogent nothing. In the end, they promptly re-peered.
I could certainly see anti-Cogent folks making the point that Cogent has
amassed a customer base of people who are fully prepared for poor or
partial connectivity, and who just don't care because of the price point.
In the game of who can stick their fingers in their ears and hum the
longest, I think Cogent will win. At least, if they continue to take on
networks who don't like them one-at-a-time, and continue the policy of
complete unreachability during depeering. :)
-- Richard A Steenbergen <> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
|
|
|