nanog mailing list archives
Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering
From: Deepak Jain <deepak () ai net>
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 20:28:49 -0400
If you don't have enable on a router, and you've never negotiated peering with a transit free ISP then you're not qualified to comment. You really don't understand what's going on here, and it's not, I repeat, not a technical problem. There is nothing wrong with the technology, architecture, or anything else. There is something wrong with the business model of one, or both of these companies.
I agree. Though many of the people who meet the second criteria don't even have enable anymore. :)
That said, the business relationships that have evolved have certainlyoverwhelmed -- or rather use a very specific definition of connectivity/reachability, etc. When two transit free networks peer, its often in many locations over many different political regions (time zones, geographies, pick your term). Deliberately and voluntarily taking that down does not change the stability of the underlying architecture.
Certainly anyone who runs any network of any size knows very well that the Internet does not survive conscience, deliberate breakage well at all -- nor was it architected to. Put a little knowledge into a border router that is a part of the "Internet" and watch the chaos you can create.
Further, the "survivability" we talk about also requires that the end nodes, clients, networks, ISPs design for fault-tolerance. This would imply no single-connections. Like all de-peerings, this creates the most hardship for those Enterprise customers (and smaller customers) that either don't have the know how to know they need multiple providers and portable space or the smaller customers that can't afford it [business model or actual finance]. Those of us who are customers of both networks or customers of neither network wouldn't even notice.
I think Cogent's offer of providing free transit to all single homed Level3 customers is particularly clever and being underpublicized. I wouldn't be surprised if Cogent is in more buildings than Level3 with a high degree of overlap with the entire Level3 lit network. That could be a very nasty "competitor" to force into your customers awareness by your own action (or inaction) -- especially if your customer is single homed to you and realizes now that isn't enough of the "Internet" for them.
Deepak
Current thread:
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering, (continued)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Douglas Dever (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Matthew Crocker (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Alex Rubenstein (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering JC Dill (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering James Spenceley (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering andrew matthews (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering JC Dill (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Richard A Steenbergen (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Lamar Owen (Oct 06)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Leo Bicknell (Oct 06)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Deepak Jain (Oct 06)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Niels Bakker (Oct 06)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Deepak Jain (Oct 06)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Patrick W. Gilmore (Oct 06)
- Cogent move without renumbering (was: Cogent/Level 3 depeering) William Allen Simpson (Oct 07)
- Re: Cogent move without renumbering William Allen Simpson (Oct 07)
- Re: Cogent move without renumbering Paul Vixie (Oct 07)
- Re: Cogent move without renumbering Bill Woodcock (Oct 07)
- Re: Cogent move without renumbering William Allen Simpson (Oct 07)
- Re: Cogent move without renumbering Randy Bush (Oct 07)
- Re: Cogent move without renumbering William Allen Simpson (Oct 07)
