There are thousands of small businesses that depend on single-homed Internet connectivity and that cannot afford dual-homing.
On the contrary, the point I got from this is that maybe small businesses can't afford not to purchase dual-homed service. Its all a risk assessment thing - how much is this actually costing the small business? How likely is it to happen in the future? Is it worth dual-homing to avoid this if it does?
About who is big in a peering relationship:
Has nothing to do with size of IP address range.
Has everything to do with how much travels from Cogent to L3 for L3's customers and how much travels from L3 to Cogent for Cogent's customers. As long as those amounts are roughly the same (someone I consider a network guru once told me 4:1 or closer) then it makes sense for both peers to allow the traffic for the other's customers without charging anything for that service.
I don't know if this is why L3 cut off the connection, but if it is I think they are in the right. In peering, each side controls a toll road and are letting the others' customers use their road so that their customers can use the other's road. If Cogent's customers are using L3's road but L3's aren't using Cogent's, why should L3 continue the peering relationship? If L3's customers complain, then L3 will have to do something about it. Otherwise, Cogent will have to make a deal with L3 to reopen the pipe - I imagine huge amounts of money may be involved.
Slashdot Mirror
On the contrary, the point I got from this is that maybe small businesses can't afford not to purchase dual-homed service. Its all a risk assessment thing - how much is this actually costing the small business? How likely is it to happen in the future? Is it worth dual-homing to avoid this if it does?
About who is big in a peering relationship:
Has nothing to do with size of IP address range.
Has everything to do with how much travels from Cogent to L3 for L3's customers and how much travels from L3 to Cogent for Cogent's customers. As long as those amounts are roughly the same (someone I consider a network guru once told me 4:1 or closer) then it makes sense for both peers to allow the traffic for the other's customers without charging anything for that service.
I don't know if this is why L3 cut off the connection, but if it is I think they are in the right. In peering, each side controls a toll road and are letting the others' customers use their road so that their customers can use the other's road. If Cogent's customers are using L3's road but L3's aren't using Cogent's, why should L3 continue the peering relationship? If L3's customers complain, then L3 will have to do something about it. Otherwise, Cogent will have to make a deal with L3 to reopen the pipe - I imagine huge amounts of money may be involved.