On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 10:00:41PM +0000, Paul Vixie wrote: [snip]
the second plain text assertion which caught my eye was:
Why is this happening? There are a few possibilities. First, Cogent may simply want revenue from the networks it has de-peered, in the form of Internet transit. Of course, few de-peered networks are willing to fork over cash to those that have rejected them. Another possibility is that Cogent is seeing threats from other peers regarding its heavy outbound ratios, and it seeks to disconnect Limelight and other content-heavy peers to help balance those ratios out.
this makes no sense, since dan golding would know that cogent's other peers would not be seeing traffic via cogent from the allegedly de-peered peers.
The question makes no sense, since paul vixie would know that traffic pushed away has to go somewhere. Specifically traffic formerly taking the path (content net)->cogent would take (content net)->(othernets)->cogent. Given sufficent traffic analysis, one could determine some sets of (content net) entities which would *likely* deliver a known-to-cogent quantitiy of traffic over the complaining (othernets). Depending what the silly ratio gobbledegook was the basis for complaints, and how much existing (content customer)->cogent->(othernets) needs to be 'balanced', the complaining (othernets) might just be inviting their own complaints to be turned back on themselves... -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE