New Intercage upstream

Lamar Owen lowen at
Fri Sep 12 13:24:33 CDT 2008

On Friday 12 September 2008 04:29:13 marcus.sachs at wrote:

For your reading enjoyments, their peering guidelines verbiage is at and their transit SLA is 

The differences in the termination clauses of the two agreements make 
interesting reading.  If a bit dull.

In summary, for this specific network exchange's situations only:
1.) Peers may be terminated for a number of reasons (or for no reason at all, 
with 30 days notice).  There is of course the normal 'no transit through our 
network' verbiage, and a temporary instant disconnect clause for serious 
problems (clauses 5.2 and 5.3).  Patrick's favorite clause will likely be 
5.5, where PIE reserves the right to refuse interconnection with or without 
any reason. I find it most interesting that they feel the need to enumerate 
an obvious right of a provider not normally worth mentioning.

2.) Customers have more rights than peers (obviously; consideration is 
changing hands).  One relevant section is IV(C) of their SLA.  They at least 
say the tough line against spam, and a depeering notice from one of their 
peers carries great weight (as it should, of course).  But, in section IV(I) 
PIE makes a connection guarantee.  That is their right to do, obviously, but 
gives the customer the right to the connection as long as the customer plays 
by the rules.  No arbitrary disconnect ability there, for transit customers 
at least. The agreement even warrants that PIE has the authority to grant the 
rights under that agreement.  Interesting wording.

So if you want to be able to shut down a BGP session at a whim, you'd best 
make sure your agreement you executed allows for that; or exercise your right 
as a provider to refuse the customer, one or the other.

It will be interesting to see how long this link stays active.  And how long 
it takes for Intercage to find another upstream.  Money talks.

More information about the NANOG mailing list