Re: CenturyLink in Advanced Talks to Merge With Level 3 Communications - Interweb is doomed
On 10/27/2016 12:36, Nevin Gonsalves via NANOG wrote:
:-) http://www.wsj.com/articles/centurylink-in-advanced-talks-to-merge-with-leve...
OH BOY! Omaha Taxpayers get to replace all the BGSs for their party venue boondoggle. Again. https://www.google.com/maps/place/CenturyLink+Center+Omaha/@41.2623782,-95.9... -- "Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." --Albert Einstein From Larry's Cox account.
lol
On Oct 28, 2016, at 00:43, Larry Sheldon <larrysheldon@cox.net> wrote:
On 10/27/2016 12:36, Nevin Gonsalves via NANOG wrote:
:-) http://www.wsj.com/articles/centurylink-in-advanced-talks-to-merge-with-leve...
OH BOY! Omaha Taxpayers get to replace all the BGSs for their party venue boondoggle. Again.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/CenturyLink+Center+Omaha/@41.2623782,-95.9...
-- "Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."
--Albert Einstein
From Larry's Cox account.
-- Jason Hellenthal JJH48-ARIN
On 10/27/2016 12:36, Nevin Gonsalves via NANOG wrote:
:-) http://www.wsj.com/articles/centurylink-in-advanced-talks-to-merge-with-leve...
This is great! Except for all of their mutual customers who had circuits from both for redundancy. (See also: Level 3's and TWTC's mutual customers, and probably a long list of other M&A I'm not thinking of off-hand.) OK, I lied about it being great anyway. Jima
So if this went through, how would it happen? Does 3356 (L3) absorb 209's (CL) infrastructure and slowly make customers change their peering config to hit 3356 instead? You make a good point, I have at least a couple clients that peer to both providers for redundancy. One of which just recently signed an agreement with CenturyLink for the sole purpose of fail over. -----Original Message----- Re: CenturyLink in Advanced Talks to Merge With Level 3 Communications - Interweb is doomed From: Jima <nanog@jima.us> To: <nanog@nanog.org>
On 10/27/2016 12:36, Nevin Gonsalves via NANOG wrote:
:-)
http://www.wsj.com/articles/centurylink-in-advanced-talks-to-merge-with-leve...
This is great! Except for all of their mutual customers who had circuits from both for redundancy. (See also: Level 3's and TWTC's mutual customers, and probably a long list of other M&A I'm not thinking of off-hand.) OK, I lied about it being great anyway. Jima -----Original Message----- Re: CenturyLink in Advanced Talks to Merge With Level 3 Communications - Interweb is doomed From: Jima <nanog@jima.us> To: <nanog@nanog.org>
Level3 hasn't even finished migrating its TWTelecom customers to the L3 AS yes, and it's been years. So I don't think you can expect any faster transition for CL. -mel beckman
On Oct 28, 2016, at 2:16 PM, Timothy Lister <incudie@gmail.com> wrote:
So if this went through, how would it happen? Does 3356 (L3) absorb 209's (CL) infrastructure and slowly make customers change their peering config to hit 3356 instead?
You make a good point, I have at least a couple clients that peer to both providers for redundancy. One of which just recently signed an agreement with CenturyLink for the sole purpose of fail over.
-----Original Message----- Re: CenturyLink in Advanced Talks to Merge With Level 3 Communications - Interweb is doomed From: Jima <nanog@jima.us> To: <nanog@nanog.org>
On 10/27/2016 12:36, Nevin Gonsalves via NANOG wrote: :-) http://www.wsj.com/articles/centurylink-in-advanced-talks-to-merge-with-leve...
This is great! Except for all of their mutual customers who had circuits from both for redundancy. (See also: Level 3's and TWTC's mutual customers, and probably a long list of other M&A I'm not thinking of off-hand.)
OK, I lied about it being great anyway.
Jima
-----Original Message----- Re: CenturyLink in Advanced Talks to Merge With Level 3 Communications - Interweb is doomed From: Jima <nanog@jima.us> To: <nanog@nanog.org>
On 10/28/16 12:18 PM, Mel Beckman wrote:
Level3 hasn't even finished migrating its TWTelecom customers to the L3 AS yes, and it's been years. So I don't think you can expect any faster transition for CL. 3549 still exists... -mel beckman
On Oct 28, 2016, at 2:16 PM, Timothy Lister <incudie@gmail.com> wrote:
So if this went through, how would it happen? Does 3356 (L3) absorb 209's (CL) infrastructure and slowly make customers change their peering config to hit 3356 instead?
You make a good point, I have at least a couple clients that peer to both providers for redundancy. One of which just recently signed an agreement with CenturyLink for the sole purpose of fail over.
-----Original Message----- Re: CenturyLink in Advanced Talks to Merge With Level 3 Communications - Interweb is doomed From: Jima <nanog@jima.us> To: <nanog@nanog.org>
On 10/27/2016 12:36, Nevin Gonsalves via NANOG wrote: :-) http://www.wsj.com/articles/centurylink-in-advanced-talks-to-merge-with-leve...
This is great! Except for all of their mutual customers who had circuits from both for redundancy. (See also: Level 3's and TWTC's mutual customers, and probably a long list of other M&A I'm not thinking of off-hand.)
OK, I lied about it being great anyway.
Jima
-----Original Message----- Re: CenturyLink in Advanced Talks to Merge With Level 3 Communications - Interweb is doomed From: Jima <nanog@jima.us> To: <nanog@nanog.org>
Savvis 3561 still exists on Centurylink's side too. 6 networks down to 1 ... How much of that fiber for each network was running in the same conduit to begin with anyway? Centurylink Qwest Savvis Level3 Global Crossing TWTC On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 12:24 PM, joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> wrote:
Level3 hasn't even finished migrating its TWTelecom customers to the L3 AS yes, and it's been years. So I don't think you can expect any faster
On 10/28/16 12:18 PM, Mel Beckman wrote: transition for CL. 3549 still exists...
-mel beckman
On Oct 28, 2016, at 2:16 PM, Timothy Lister <incudie@gmail.com> wrote:
So if this went through, how would it happen? Does 3356 (L3) absorb 209's (CL) infrastructure and slowly make customers change their peering config to hit 3356 instead?
You make a good point, I have at least a couple clients that peer to both providers for redundancy. One of which just recently signed an agreement with CenturyLink for the sole purpose of fail over.
-----Original Message----- Re: CenturyLink in Advanced Talks to Merge With Level 3 Communications - Interweb is doomed From: Jima <nanog@jima.us> To: <nanog@nanog.org>
On 10/27/2016 12:36, Nevin Gonsalves via NANOG wrote: :-) http://www.wsj.com/articles/centurylink-in-advanced-talks- to-merge-with-level-3-communications-1477589011
This is great! Except for all of their mutual customers who had circuits from both for redundancy. (See also: Level 3's and TWTC's mutual customers, and probably a long list of other M&A I'm not thinking of off-hand.)
OK, I lied about it being great anyway.
Jima
-----Original Message----- Re: CenturyLink in Advanced Talks to Merge With Level 3 Communications - Interweb is doomed From: Jima <nanog@jima.us> To: <nanog@nanog.org>
It's funny you should mention that. I just learned that our CL traffic rides on a single lambda is a Level3 fiber. Oddly, though, the cost to buy that same circuit directly from Level3 is twice as high. Which bodes ill for circuit pricing in the reduced-competition environment following the merger. A similar thing happened to us when L3 bought TWT. In both cases L3 says "but you're getting such a better network!" Alas, that turned out to be not the case with the TWT acquisition, as merger mishaps caused numerous outages. -mel
On Oct 28, 2016, at 7:25 PM, Jared Geiger <jared@compuwizz.net> wrote:
Savvis 3561 still exists on Centurylink's side too. 6 networks down to 1 ... How much of that fiber for each network was running in the same conduit to begin with anyway?
Centurylink Qwest Savvis
Level3 Global Crossing TWTC
On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 12:24 PM, joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> wrote:
On 10/28/16 12:18 PM, Mel Beckman wrote: Level3 hasn't even finished migrating its TWTelecom customers to the L3 AS yes, and it's been years. So I don't think you can expect any faster transition for CL. 3549 still exists... -mel beckman
On Oct 28, 2016, at 2:16 PM, Timothy Lister <incudie@gmail.com> wrote:
So if this went through, how would it happen? Does 3356 (L3) absorb 209's (CL) infrastructure and slowly make customers change their peering config to hit 3356 instead?
You make a good point, I have at least a couple clients that peer to both providers for redundancy. One of which just recently signed an agreement with CenturyLink for the sole purpose of fail over.
-----Original Message----- Re: CenturyLink in Advanced Talks to Merge With Level 3 Communications - Interweb is doomed From: Jima <nanog@jima.us> To: <nanog@nanog.org>
> On 10/27/2016 12:36, Nevin Gonsalves via NANOG wrote: > :-) http://www.wsj.com/articles/centurylink-in-advanced-talks- to-merge-with-level-3-communications-1477589011
This is great! Except for all of their mutual customers who had circuits from both for redundancy. (See also: Level 3's and TWTC's mutual customers, and probably a long list of other M&A I'm not thinking of off-hand.)
OK, I lied about it being great anyway.
Jima
-----Original Message----- Re: CenturyLink in Advanced Talks to Merge With Level 3 Communications - Interweb is doomed From: Jima <nanog@jima.us> To: <nanog@nanog.org>
We were on on 4323 - we are still peered to 4323 (from a config stand point) - but the world sees us thru 3549 It is a mess on convergence On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 3:24 PM, joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> wrote:
Level3 hasn't even finished migrating its TWTelecom customers to the L3 AS yes, and it's been years. So I don't think you can expect any faster
On 10/28/16 12:18 PM, Mel Beckman wrote: transition for CL. 3549 still exists...
-mel beckman
On Oct 28, 2016, at 2:16 PM, Timothy Lister <incudie@gmail.com> wrote:
So if this went through, how would it happen? Does 3356 (L3) absorb 209's (CL) infrastructure and slowly make customers change their peering config to hit 3356 instead?
You make a good point, I have at least a couple clients that peer to both providers for redundancy. One of which just recently signed an agreement with CenturyLink for the sole purpose of fail over.
-----Original Message----- Re: CenturyLink in Advanced Talks to Merge With Level 3 Communications - Interweb is doomed From: Jima <nanog@jima.us> To: <nanog@nanog.org>
On 10/27/2016 12:36, Nevin Gonsalves via NANOG wrote: :-) http://www.wsj.com/articles/centurylink-in-advanced-talks- to-merge-with-level-3-communications-1477589011
This is great! Except for all of their mutual customers who had circuits from both for redundancy. (See also: Level 3's and TWTC's mutual customers, and probably a long list of other M&A I'm not thinking of off-hand.)
OK, I lied about it being great anyway.
Jima
-----Original Message----- Re: CenturyLink in Advanced Talks to Merge With Level 3 Communications - Interweb is doomed From: Jima <nanog@jima.us> To: <nanog@nanog.org>
And I'm sure it would go about as well as the TW integration went. Level3 is currently having issues, we lost BGP just a bit ago and also legacy voice trunks have been down since first thing this morning. Sent from my iPhone On Oct 28, 2016, at 2:17 PM, Timothy Lister <incudie@gmail.com<mailto:incudie@gmail.com>> wrote: So if this went through, how would it happen? Does 3356 (L3) absorb 209's (CL) infrastructure and slowly make customers change their peering config to hit 3356 instead? You make a good point, I have at least a couple clients that peer to both providers for redundancy. One of which just recently signed an agreement with CenturyLink for the sole purpose of fail over. Luke Guillory Network Operations Manager [cid:image9bee0e.JPG@604f5a4c.42a728e5] <http://www.rtconline.com> Tel: 985.536.1212 Fax: 985.536.0300 Email: lguillory@reservetele.com Web: www.rtconline.com Reserve Telecommunications 100 RTC Dr Reserve, LA 70084 Disclaimer: The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material which should not disseminate, distribute or be copied. Please notify Luke Guillory immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Luke Guillory therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. -----Original Message----- Re: CenturyLink in Advanced Talks to Merge With Level 3 Communications - Interweb is doomed From: Jima <nanog@jima.us<mailto:nanog@jima.us>> To: <nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> On 10/27/2016 12:36, Nevin Gonsalves via NANOG wrote: :-) http://www.wsj.com/articles/centurylink-in-advanced-talks-to-merge-with-leve... This is great! Except for all of their mutual customers who had circuits from both for redundancy. (See also: Level 3's and TWTC's mutual customers, and probably a long list of other M&A I'm not thinking of off-hand.) OK, I lied about it being great anyway. Jima -----Original Message----- Re: CenturyLink in Advanced Talks to Merge With Level 3 Communications - Interweb is doomed From: Jima <nanog@jima.us<mailto:nanog@jima.us>> To: <nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org>>
participants (9)
-
Jared Geiger -
Jason Hellenthal -
Jeff Waddell -
Jima -
joel jaeggli -
Larry Sheldon -
Luke Guillory -
Mel Beckman -
Timothy Lister