On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 10:00:41PM +0000, Paul Vixie wrote:
[snip]
> 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
