On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 03:44:10PM -0400, Charles Gucker 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.
Of course it gets both ways. The point is that Level 3 is a real tier 1, and Cogent not. Cogent _tries_ to become tier 1, but doesn't achieve it (actually, seems to make steps back, see OpenTransit and now Level 3). Ras has written an IMHO very good explanation of the situation and I don't have to add anything to it really.
L3 can also get Cogent connectivity elsewhere. This is a big game of chicken, it will be interesting to see who backs down first.
Yup. Seeing that OpenTransit won, and Level 3 beeing a fatter chicken, I'd be somewhat surprised of L3 would lose it. But as I don't know the US market, I might be wrong. *shrug*. Either way, L3 _is_ a tier 1, and Cogent isn't. That gives L3 a certain advantage they try to play out right now. Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0