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