[85424] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Level 3's side of the story
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (jmalcolm@uraeus.com)
Sun Oct 9 10:48:45 2005
Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 14:46:57 +0000
From: jmalcolm@uraeus.com
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <20051008190713.GI1332@overlord.e-gerbil.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Richard A Steenbergen writes:
>For anyone keeping score, the
>last two times Cogent was depeered, it responded by intentionally blocking
>connectivity to the network in question, despite the fact that both of
>those networks were Sprint customers and thus perfectly reachable under
>the Sprint transit Cogent gets from Verio. While no one has come forward
>to say if the Cogent/Verio agreement is structured for full transit or
>only Sprint/ATDN routes, Cogent has certainly set a precedent for
>intentionally disrupting connectivity in response to depeering, as a scare
>tactic to keep other networks from depeering them.
Without getting into the question of what is "right", it's perfectly
plausible that the Cogent-Verio interconnection is structured such
that Verio didn't send Cogent routes to FT via Sprint. Consider the
hypothetical case where Verio might peer with FT.
Joe
