jnxrox
join:2005-10-07
Las Vegas, NV
| reply to smcallah
Take a step back
Level3's general customer profile is not a small/med, single-homed business. They cater to large multi-homed carriers and businesses. Cogent's customer base is much more vunerable here. It's the single-homed level3 customer to the Cogent single-homed customer that is impacted and as low cost vendor to the masses, that fits the cogent profile more. Level3 isn't going to connect to transit to satisfy such a small % of customers just to get to Cogent's single-homed customers. Cogent has more skin in the game and you saw that desperation in their initial responses.
Disconnecting peering happens. Cogent was notified and did not make arrangements for their customers. Level3 disconnected and that was their plan. If you check the reality on the connectivity affected, it's smaller than Cogent would lead you to believe. Most companies are multi-homed and in fine shape for re-routing around these issues. |
|
smcallah
join:2004-08-05
Home
| Well, since Level(3) turned this back on because of customer complaints, obviously there was a lot of need for their customers to get to Cogent.
If it was as "small" an impact as you say, Level(3) wouldn't have been bothered by a "few" customer complaints.
Also, sometimes multihomed customers don't want to use their backup connection, because they may be paying more per megabit for it. Say you're paying Level(3) for a 155 mbps connection, and it's $50/mbit. And you have another connection to Provider X, who charges you $150/mbit, but ONLY if you use them. So that peer is running at 0, you're paying them nothing until you use it. Then suddenly 20% of your 155 mbps goes to your backup connection. All of a sudden you're looking at paying an extra $4600 a month that you didn't have to pay, because now one of your providers doesn't have any routes to Cogent.
Many multihomed customers are setup like that. They have a main link, and a backup. Sure, it was their choice to get such a link. But it is people like this that can pressure Level(3) to do what they had to do. I worked for a year for a small hosting company that had a Level(3) connection and a connection to another ISP that worked like this. |
|
vferrari3
join:2005-10-07
Boston, MA
| said by smcallah  :Well, since Level(3) turned this back on because of customer complaints, obviously there was a lot of need for their customers to get to Cogent. If it was as "small" an impact as you say, Level(3) wouldn't have been bothered by a "few" customer complaints. It wasn't turned back on because of customer complaints. It was turned on to help Cogent which was the more desperate party here. Notice the lack of information from Level3 as opposed to the screaming and press releases coming out of Cogent. It will be the same in Nov., Level3 will not pay to reach a small % of single homed cogent customers.
Mostly you'll still use the Level3 link to get to the many Cogent multi-homed customers, you'll just take a different path. But, yes in your scenario you would start using the unused link to get to the single-homed Cogent customers. Tell me why this is Level3's problem? They run their business, you run yours. With all the people up in arms there's one thing that seems to always be forgotten...this is not an unusual thing to happen, the Cogent response is what is the unusual piece. They did the same thing with others in the past and had to purchase routes to fill in their 'gaps'. You never hear about the other times carriers de-peer with each other because it's taken care of during the period of notice. Cogent uses the period to call the other carrier's bluff, and when connectivity is lost they smear. It's happened more than once.
This was more a PR war then anything and Cogent won the battle.
_VF |
|
smcallah
join:2004-08-05
Home
| said by vferrari3 : It wasn't turned back on because of customer complaints. Sorry, but it was because of Level(3) customer complaints that this was turned back on.
Level(3) didn't care about helping Cogent, they cared about helping themselves. If they cared about helping Cogent, they would have extended this without turning it off.
But since Level(3) also had losing customers and losing revenue on its mind, they had to turn this back on. They were the only ones with the ability to turn it on.
It doesn't matter if it's Level(3)'s fault or not. The only reason they exist is for customers. If they lose those, what do they have? |
|
vferrari3
join:2005-10-07
Boston, MA
| said by smcallah :Sorry, but it was because of Level(3) customer complaints that this was turned back on. Level(3) didn't care about helping Cogent, they cared about helping themselves. If they cared about helping Cogent, they would have extended this without turning it off. You don't get it. They have no obligation to extend without turning it off. Peering is for mutual benefit. When one party no longer perceives benefit they back out. The party that relies on that arrangement too much is the weaker of the two. Level3 turned it back on because clearly there were PR implications where the public was not understanding the issues and they gave Cogent a reprieve. They knew what they were doing, they've done it before and come november, they will still not have those Cogent routes unless cogent utilizes their transit providers. Level3 did a risk analysis and/or cost analysis. The arrangement doesn't work for them. There's nothing wrong with that. They believe that the cost to keep the peering up is too much and is not balanced by the revenue they take in from the smaller single homed customer that were affected. If those customers go away, it may even be that they perceive that as a good thing. Smaller customers in the wholesale carrier business are usually higher cost to operate and higher cost to provision. It's a business decision and if you don't like it, take your business elsewhere. Again, I applaud that decision and there's nothing wrong with that. Forcing Level3 to keep up links that are not beneficial to their business is what would be wrong.
How would you like it if you were forced to keep a business relationship going that you perceived as bad for your business? You'd want out if an arrangement with a supplier was no longer benefitting you.
_VF |
|
DSLTech
join:2000-12-30
San Jose, CA
| I know for sure Level 3's customers were complaining. Can you imagine what a handfull of unhappy ISPs complaining might do to convince Level 3 to make a change?
Who was complaining? Oh, perhaps ISPs like Earthlink, Speakeasy, Megapath, etc. who all have connections via Level 3 to the internet, as well as other forms of peering. Dont you think that their complaints weigh heavily on Level 3?
Earthlink could, for example, choose to use Wiltel instead of Level 3 as a primary internet access connection, so their displeasure is very, very important to Level 3.
Fortunately our ISP is dual-homed to the internet, Level 3 being only one of the 2 options. |
|
smcallah
join:2004-08-05
Home
| reply to vferrari3
I don't get it? My whole point was theoretical. Obviously it wasn't the true case. I was saying IF Level(3) cared about Cogent, they would have tried to work something out with them or extend the deadline without turning it off. They did not. So they spent 3 days getting customer complaints, which they DO care about. And so had to end up extending the deadline anyway.
But they obviously didn't care enough about their customers to let them know beforehand, so maybe my point is moot anyway.
And if the links aren't beneficial to Level(3)'s business, why did they turn them back up in the face of customer complaints?
It was customer complaints that brought this back up, whether you know that or not. What else would have brought it back up? Level(3) obviously wasn't willing to work with Cogent, for whatever reason, and dropped the connection.
They're more willing to work with them now, in the face of customer complaints, I hope anyway that it means they're more willing. It may simply mean that they are telling their customers that in 30 days you won't reach Cogent through them, and they'll end it at that with no negotiation. |
|
PGHammer
join:2003-06-09
Accokeek, MD
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| reply to DSLTech
Except for dial-up providers, and this would typicaly not apply to the larger such providers, *any* ISP, if at all possible, would multi-home (via, at worst, two second-tier bandwidth providers). I know of NO national dial-up ISPs (including Earthlink) that use single-peering. Apparently, for whatever reason, the expiration of Cogent's peering agreement with Level 3 would have seriously inconvenienced a major subset of customers (either Cogent's OR Level 3's) else the dispute would not be taking place. |
|
