|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
From: sigma@smx.pair.com In-Reply-To: <20051005191129.GA29425@srv01.cluenet.de> from Daniel Roesen at "Oct 5, 5 09:11:29 pm" To: nanog@nanog.org Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 16:04:09 -0400 (EDT) Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu > 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. So if you're a Level(3) customer and you ask their network to exchange packets with an IP address reachable only through Cogent, and they can't do so, how does that differ from the reverse situation? If you pay a network to move bits for you, they should be making the best effort to move those bits. Level(3) is now making less of an effort. So is Cogent. Customers of both networks lose out, and have a right to be irritated. I wonder what the traffic levels and ratios involved are. I'm sure that's a big part of the untold story. Kevin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |