AOL & Cogent

David Diaz techlist at
Sun Dec 29 23:52:34 UTC 2002

Well, if L3 is a transit provider, would it not make sense for them 
to increase the peering pipes in order to bill their customers more? 
I am sure there are some smiles there right now.

At 20:24 -0600 12/28/02, Basil Kruglov wrote:
>Speaking of this whole Cogent/AOL/Level3 mess.. sigh.
>I got tired of trying getting anything out of Cogent. So, here's list of
>questions perhaps someone might be able to answer.
>1. I'm sure some of you are customers of Level3, and I'm sure
>you do see 1-2 sec latency w/ Cogent, what's the official Level3 'position'
>if/when you contact them? Do they have any plans upgrading capacity with
>Cogent, what's their side of this story in general?
>2. I think I asked this before, why wouldn't Cogent prepend
>customer prefixes to Level3 or set BGP4 community for multihomed sites,
>homed w/ Cogent + someone else.
>(This is to control inbound, and please don't go into "this is not-standard
>and Cogent won't do it".)
>3. Did anyone suggested to Cogent to carry traffic (or some portion of it)
>to AOL via MFN to offload its Level3 peering? I couldn't get any straight
>answer from Cogent why this can't be done.
>4. And another interesting perspective... I'm sure NDAs on peering are
>involved, but anyhow -some of us don't really care about AOL that
>much, assuming it is only outbound from Cogent into AOL (via Level3) that is
>saturated, Cogent may try to push traffic as:
>16631_174_3356_ excluding AOL' ASN(s) at one peering location
>and keep saturating its Level3 peering connectivity at other locations. Any


David Diaz
dave at [Email]
pagedave at [Pager] [Peering Site under development]
Smotons (Smart Photons) trump dumb photons

More information about the NANOG mailing list