RE: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

["David Schwartz" <davids () webmaster com>]

> Without making value judgments or saying what L3 / Cogent _should_
> do, I think Matthew is saying that he paid Cogent for connectivity to
> the internet.  So if his GNAPS circuit dies, he does not want to be
> cut off from L3 end users.  Right now, he has no such guarantee.
>
> Exactly which part of this do you think is nonsense?  Or do you think
> redundant circuits only need to be partially redundant?

        The part that defines "internet" implicitly as including any computer he
wishes to reach regardless of its actual connectivity or policy. IMO, if a
site or provider is not making a genuine effort to exchange traffic with
anyone else willing to make a similar effort, it's not part of the internet.

        Neither Cogent nor Level 3 can force someone who does not wish to accept
their traffic into doing so. All they can do is make a reasonable effort to
exchange traffic with anyone else who will make such an effort.

        Level 3 cut of Cogent's connectivity. Until and unless they give some
reason that makes sense, they are no longer making the effort and are not
part of the internet. The fact that Cogent could make a spectacular effort
and get connectivity is not relevant. Cogent could run a 100Mpbs line from
their neaest POP to the machine in my garage that isn't connected to
anything else and you could reach it. That doesn't mean I get to say my
machine is an internet host you can't reach.

        My views may be colored though. I've heard Cogent's side of the story and
nobody seems to know what Level3's side is.

        DS