Re: Cogent/Level 3 Contracts (was: Cogent/Level 3 depeering)
On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, William Allen Simpson wrote: Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, William Allen Simpson wrote: Rather than speculation, it would be helpful to refer to the actual contracts. Please post the relevant sections, Mr Wilcox. the contract talks of on-net traffic, off-net traffic and excused outages excused outages includes that of third party network providers off-net traffic has a 99% SLA excluding excused outages. Again, rather than speculation, it would be helpful to refer to the actual contracts. Please post the relevant sections, not your summary of an index of definitions, Mr Wilcox. that was it, i just shortened it For instance, I rather doubt that the contract language defines a decision of L(3) to terminate connectivity to a third party as an excused outage. But we won't know without the contract. Enlighten us. excused outages ... includes ... third party network providers it doesnt go anywhere talking about peerings or specifics of the connectivity, but it seems to me that the ability to pass traffic to cogent falls right in this get out clause as it is a third party ianal but i'd push to break contract rather than sue Level3 as the latter seems to be a very big gamble Steve
Re: Cogent/Level 3 Contracts (was: Cogent/Level 3 depeering)
On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Seems to me that the ideal here would be for the industry to agree on a dispute resolution mechanism and for all bilateral peering agreements to include the same arbitration clause. For this kind of arbitration to function well, the arbitrators need to have some understanding of the industry and the technology. This can only be accomplished by selecting one arbitration organization to handle all the arbitration duties for the whole industry. the trouble is that there is no regulatory requirement of peering, there is no accepted standard for peering, the definition of fair varies greatly and the policies that exist are based on many criteria and personalities the problem that would arise as i see it is that such an arbitrator would be consistent with its decisions but that would be consistently right for one player and consistently wrong for another.. and if we apply that to the current scenario we can see arguments for both cogent and level3s positions Airing dirty landry in public like this hurts the whole industry, not just Level 3 and Cogent in particular. The solution is to use binding arbitration clauses in all interconnect agreements whether settlement-free, paid peering or settlement-based. i'm not sure the industry does get hurt, to us this is a major incident, but in reality there appears to only be a handful of affected customers and its not getting much attention from the press someone implied this might work in the favour of non-tier-1 networks so if that were true that would be a benefit to such networks! Steve
Re: Cogent/Level 3 Contracts (was: Cogent/Level 3 depeering)
On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, William Allen Simpson wrote: Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, JC Dill wrote: IMHO all L3 customers have a valid argument that Level 3 is in default of any service contract that calls for best effort or similar on L3's part. can you cite the relevant clause in your Level3 contract that brings you to this conclusion.. hint: you might be looking a long time because it doesnt exist and they're not in breach Rather than speculation, it would be helpful to refer to the actual contracts. Please post the relevant sections, Mr Wilcox. the contract talks of on-net traffic, off-net traffic and excused outages excused outages includes that of third party network providers off-net traffic has a 99% SLA excluding excused outages. Steve
Re: Cogent/Level 3 Contracts (was: Cogent/Level 3 depeering)
Rather than speculation, it would be helpful to refer to the actual contracts. Please post the relevant sections, Mr Wilcox. the contract talks of on-net traffic, off-net traffic and excused outages excused outages includes that of third party network providers off-net traffic has a 99% SLA excluding excused outages. One interesting point that came up in an off-list message that I received was the topic of arbitration. Would anyone be in a position to estimate how many peering agreements include an arbitration clause such as this one: http://www.cidra.org/modelarb.htm I have no relationship with CIDRA, but since they are in Chicago, a major trading center, and they offer international arbitration, I thought they were an appropriate example. In the non-Internet world of telecommunications, the state PUCs handle arbitration of interconnect disputes but that is because this role is embedded in the Telecommunications Act of 1966. Other arbitration services include http://www.adr.org who are tied in to the NAFTA agreements, http://www.cpradr.org/ http://www.usam.com/ http://www.acrnet.org/ Here is a quick summary of US arbitration law http://www.arbitration.co.nz/content.asp?section=Arbitrationcountry=USA Seems to me that the ideal here would be for the industry to agree on a dispute resolution mechanism and for all bilateral peering agreements to include the same arbitration clause. For this kind of arbitration to function well, the arbitrators need to have some understanding of the industry and the technology. This can only be accomplished by selecting one arbitration organization to handle all the arbitration duties for the whole industry. Airing dirty landry in public like this hurts the whole industry, not just Level 3 and Cogent in particular. The solution is to use binding arbitration clauses in all interconnect agreements whether settlement-free, paid peering or settlement-based. --Michael Dillon
Re: Cogent/Level 3 Contracts (was: Cogent/Level 3 depeering)
Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, William Allen Simpson wrote: Rather than speculation, it would be helpful to refer to the actual contracts. Please post the relevant sections, Mr Wilcox. the contract talks of on-net traffic, off-net traffic and excused outages excused outages includes that of third party network providers off-net traffic has a 99% SLA excluding excused outages. Again, rather than speculation, it would be helpful to refer to the actual contracts. Please post the relevant sections, not your summary of an index of definitions, Mr Wilcox. For instance, I rather doubt that the contract language defines a decision of L(3) to terminate connectivity to a third party as an excused outage. But we won't know without the contract. Enlighten us. -- William Allen Simpson Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
