i think the cogent depeering thing is a myth of some kind

Joe Provo nanog-post at rsuc.gweep.net
Fri Sep 28 23:48:53 UTC 2007

On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 10:00:41PM +0000, Paul Vixie wrote:
> the second plain text assertion which caught my eye was:
> 	Why is this happening? There are a few possibilities. First, Cogent
> 	may simply want revenue from the networks it has de-peered, in the
> 	form of Internet transit. Of course, few de-peered networks are
> 	willing to fork over cash to those that have rejected them. Another
> 	possibility is that Cogent is seeing threats from other peers
> 	regarding its heavy outbound ratios, and it seeks to disconnect
> 	Limelight and other content-heavy peers to help balance those ratios
> 	out.
> this makes no sense, since dan golding would know that cogent's other peers
> would not be seeing traffic via cogent from the allegedly de-peered peers.

The question makes no sense, since paul vixie would know that traffic
pushed away has to go somewhere. Specifically traffic formerly taking 
the path 
  (content net)->cogent 
would take 
  (content net)->(othernets)->cogent.  

Given sufficent traffic analysis, one could determine some sets of 
(content net) entities which would *likely* deliver a known-to-cogent 
quantitiy of traffic over the complaining (othernets).  Depending 
what the silly ratio gobbledegook was the basis for complaints, and 
how much existing 
  (content customer)->cogent->(othernets) 
needs to be 'balanced', the complaining (othernets) might just be 
inviting their own complaints to be turned back on themselves...

             RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE

More information about the NANOG mailing list