[85412] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Sat Oct 8 23:25:54 2005
To: "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve@telecomplete.co.uk>
Cc: Daniel Golding <dgolding@burtongroup.com>,
Patrick Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net>, nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 08 Oct 2005 20:41:55 BST."
<Pine.LNX.4.44.0510082039090.10796-100000@server2.tcw.telecomplete.net>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 23:23:51 -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
--==_Exmh_1128828231_2743P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 20:41:55 BST, "Stephen J. Wilcox" said:
> my rule would be if your provider can manage an autonomous system better than
> you and multihoming isnt a requirement of your business then let them take on
> the management
I'm willing to bet there's a lot of single-homed customers of both Cogent and
L3 that 2 weeks ago didn't think multihoming was a requirement of their
business either, who now are contemplating it. Plus possibly some single-homed
customers of other large providers as well.
Anybody want to start a pool on how many new AS numbers will get issued as a
result of this tiff, and what percent will commit a BGP whoopsie that impacts
more than just themselves within the first 6 months?
On the other hand, I see a business opportunity to sell new customers insurance
against self-inflicted gunshot wounds to the feet here. Some providers might
even consider selling a managed service at a slight loss, just for self-defense.. :)
--==_Exmh_1128828231_2743P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFDSI1HcC3lWbTT17ARAhjXAJ9JkltgjRpyMJJIMwVrE3+U89LSNwCgz6Ph
dDmh1KlFyN9hlcbKSObvvtg=
=K6nt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1128828231_2743P--
