On 10/28/05 7:37 PM, "Crist Clark" <crist.clark@globalstar.com> wrote:
Eric Louie wrote:
Now, one really needs to wonder why the agreement could not be reached *prior* to the depeering on 10/5
It's not rocket science.
As people have pointed out repeatedly, this was surely not rocket science since it wasn't a technical problem at all. It was a business conflict.
It seems clear to me what probably happened. First-round negotaitions failed 'cause Level 3 thought Cogent was bluffing (and perhaps vice versa). Level 3 called the bluff, but it wasn't a bluff, and Level 3 then blinked (or so it appears from reading between the lines of what I've seen). They both got back to negotiation, and with a better understanding of to how much pain the other willing to take to get what they want, this time they came out with an agreement.
Doesn't seems mysterious.
It should. Level(3) knew that Cogent would partition. Why? Because they've done it before, more than once. Their business model supports that strategy (some would say, demands it). The Level(3) folks are well informed and would certainly have anticipated this action. The Cogent folks also knew, with a high degree of probability, that Level(3) would carry out their threat. No one sends out a depeering letter unless they are willing to pull the plug. Why? Because sometimes the other party pre-empts you and downs the session before you can. Peering is one of those things that seems very simple. On the small scale that is correct. On the larger scale, especially when dealing with SFI networks, the rules change and things get hairy. Things like ratios matter a great deal when your traffic is in a zero-sum condition with ratio sensitive SFI peers. Cogent is an interesting case, as their peering decisions are typically made with more-than-ordinarily ruthlessness.
[snip]
- Dan