Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

[Charles Gucker <cgucker () onesc net>]

On 10/5/05, Daniel Roesen <dr () cluenet de> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 02:08:01PM -0400, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> > You can only be a "tier 1" and maintain global reachability if you peer
> > with every other tier 1. Level 3 is obviously the real thing, and Cogent
> > is "close enough" (at least in their own minds :P) that they won't buy
> > real transit, only spot routes for the few things that they are missing
> > (ATDN and Sprint basically). There is no route "filtering" going on, only
> > the lack of full propagation due to transit purchasing decisions, or in
> > this case the lack thereof.
>
> 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.

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 will be interesting to
see who backs down first.

> If I would be a Cogent customer, I would have a _very_ warm word with my
> sales rep why they are trying to bs me with those kind of statements and
> think that I actually am dumb enough to believe that.

Well, as I somewhat said above, there will always be three sides to
every story.  Side 1, Side 2 and the truth.  Each side has a case,
it's up to the lawyers now to sort it all out.

charles