On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 09:16:25PM +0100, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
understand the inability to reach cogent was the desired result for level3, had a contingency been put in place level3 would have been heading in the opposite direction to which they are moving (they are moving to force cogent to buy transit, not moving to pay for their connectivity to cogent nor to keep the current settlement free arrangement)
Not true. The inability to reach Cogent *DIRECTLY* was the desired result for (3). Everyone who has depeered Cogent so far seems genuinely astounded that they are perfectly willing to gamble their customers to win a peering dispute each and every time. I guarantee you that (3)'s desired outcome was that Cogent do what every other ISP who buys transit does when they get depeered, send the bits down the transit instead.
cogent has not got a transit provider giving them level3 routes (as far as we understand) and they have not gone and setup any such transit arrangement whilst waiting for the depeering.
Just to clarify the point (though I know you know this, others don't), Cogent does not have a transit provider CURRENTLY providing them (3) routes. Whether this is the result of not having a contract in place, asking Verio not to send them (3) routes, or simply rejecting the routes themselves and tagging their announcements to Verio with a no-export to 3356 community is unknown (at least to the general public :P). Given Cogent's position of intentional network segmentation in the two most recent peering disputes prior to this, in which both networks WERE reachable through the Sprint routes which Cogent *DID* have existing arragements to but which they chose not to use, it is not reasonable to think that the same would hold true here whether they had an existing ability to flip a switch and route via (3) or not. -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)