From: Patrick W. Gilmore (no email)
Date: Wed Oct 05 2005 - 15:51:34 EDT
On Oct 5, 2005, at 3:11 PM, Daniel Roesen wrote:
> Exactly. And this is why Cogent's statement to the public (and their
> customers) is an outright lie. Level 3 isn't "denying Level 3's
> customers access to Cogent's customers and denying Cogent's customers
> access to Level 3 customers.". It's just that they deny Cogent
> settlement-free direct peering anymore. Cogent can get the L3 and L3
> customer routes elsewhere if they want. But Cogent doesn't. It's
> Cogents
> decision to break connectivity, not L3's.
I think you and I have a different definition of "deny" and "decision".
Cogent was connected to L3. Level 3 TOOK ACTIVE STEPS to sever that
relationship. Cogent, this moment, has their routers, ports, and
configurations ready, willing, and able to accept and send packets to
and from L3.
Please explain to me why you think Cogent is the bad actor here?
By your logic, Level 3 is denying customers access to Cogent because
they are perfectly capable of buying transit from Verio.
All that said, it is entirely possible L3 was justified in their
actions because Cogent was abusing the peering relationship. For
instance, Cogent may have been forcing L3 to carry long haul traffic
for Cogent instead of buying their own fiber / routers / whatever.
If so, L3 probably feels their decision to terminate the peering
relationship is on sound moral, ethical, and financial ground.
However, L3 still typed in the config lines which caused this
bifurcation. Whether that makes it their "fault" is open to debate.
But it certainly is not Cogent's fault just 'cause Cogent can buy
transit - so can L3.
-- TTFN, patrick
|
|
|