Slashdot Log In
Behind the Cogent-Sprint Depeering
Posted by
kdawson
on Sun Nov 02, 2008 08:43 PM
from the it's-an-ectomy dept.
from the it's-an-ectomy dept.
An anonymous reader brings an update to Sprint's depeering with Cogent, which we discussed a few days back — namely, Sprint's side of the story. According to them, no free peering contract had ever existed, Cogent refused to pay the bills to exchange traffic, and after a year Sprint gave Cogent 30 days notice of their intent to disconnect. During this 30-day period, when one or two connections (out of ten) per week were shut down, Cogent made no alternate arrangements to alleviate the impact on their customers — but they had a press release ready when Sprint snipped the final wire. It will be interesting to see how Cogent responds.
Related Stories
[+]
Sprint Cuts Cogent Off the Internet 413 comments
superbus1929 writes "I work as a security analyst at an internet security company. While troubleshooting an issue, we learned why our customer couldn't keep his site-to-site VPN going from any location that uses Sprint as its ISP: Sprint has decided not to route traffic to Cogent due to litigation. This has a chilling effect; already, this person I worked with cannot communicate between a few sites of his, and since Sprint is stopping the connections cold (my traceroutes showed as complete, and not as timing out), it means that there is no backup plan; anyone going to Cogent from a Sprint ISP is crap out of luck."
Submission: Cogent-Sprint Depeering: The REAL Story by Anonymous Coward
[+]
The Other Side of the Sprint Vs. Cogent Depeering 174 comments
Swoolley writes "A month back this community discussed the Sprint vs. Cogent depeering. Now a story I wrote for Forbes.com tells the inside story of the fight, based on the lawsuits the two companies filed against each other in Virginia state court. For once, thanks to those suits, the public gets to see the details of a confidential peering agreement between two of the Internet's largest autonomous systems, as well as the circumstances leading up to the depeering. (Which company is in the right? Read the facts and decide for yourself.) While some people have argued that the depeering is reason for more government regulation, the Forbes story makes the case that details of the recent Cogent vs. Sprint fight argue for exactly the opposite: keeping the Internet backbones free of government meddling."
[+]
Peering Disputes Migrate To IPv6 111 comments
1sockchuck writes "As more networks prepare for the transition to IPv6, we're seeing the first peering disputes (sometimes known as 'Internet partitions') involving IPv6 connectivity. The dispute involves Cogent, which has previously been involved in high-profile IPv4 peering spats with Sprint, Level 3 and Telia. Hurricane Electric, which has been an early adopter on IPv6, says Cogent won't peer with it over IPv6. Hurricane has extended an olive branch by baking a cake bearing a message of outreach for Cogent."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
No comment from Cogent (Score:5, Funny)
They're unreachable due to no internet connection.
They're back? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:They're back? (Score:5, Funny)
Are they connected again? The traffic is flowing.
The Spacing Guild must have complained.
The spice must flow!
Parent
Re:They're back? (Score:4, Informative)
Sprint has reconnected to Cogent to mitigate the connectivity loss for the time being.
Parent
Re:They're back? (Score:5, Informative)
Just like what happened with Level(3) a few years ago.
Cogent's history in the ISP market has been absolutely horrible. They came in to town as the Walmart of ISPs, investing in a huge new super-efficient backbone infrastructure doing everything it could to cut costs so they could offer insane deals to their customers. They were running 10Gigabit connections using existing fiber and brand new equipment. They had no 'legacy' hardware.
The hosting industry bit into the Cogent game when they had customers running multimedia sites that needed tons of bandwidth (see: porn) and were tired of paying insane rates per mbps when Cogent had this brand new network with tons of capacity.
But Cogent wasn't in the 'settlement free interconnect' game yet, they were paying for bandwidth themselves. So they went out and purchased a few ISPs that already had settlement free interconnects. The agreements are already in place, so it was a big win situation for them. But these agreements almost always come with the term that you must give as much as you receive (so you need to have a balance between hosted sites and end users.) Cogent didn't have end users, they had servers.
Think of it this way: I am an apartment complex and I have an agreement to mow my neighbor's lawn and in exchange he shovels my sidewalk. It uses approximately the same amount of work. Now imagine my neighbor and all of his agreements are bought by the local golf course. Now the golf course now expects me to mow the entire course because the agreement was that they would shovel and I would mow. Cogent was the golf course, I am an ISP.
Now in my apartment I house a bunch of golfers once I say "screw this, figure out your lawn situation yourself" the course says "ok, well, I guess your tenants are going to have to go without golf." What the hell am I to do now? Mow this golf course to keep my tenants happy?
Finally I come to an agreement, the golf course has to pay me a small amount and I will mow their grass. Everything seems OK, but then the golf course gets in to a bit of trouble and all of a sudden decides "OK, well... he doesn't want his tenants to go without golf so he will probably keep mowing our grass even if we stop paying him." Here we are again, I'm in an impossible situation because I really care about my tenants but man, I just cannot mow an entire golf course all by myself. So I send the golf course warnings after warnings, and after I reach a tipping point I just say "GFY, I'm not mowing your course anymore." I stop mowing it, and the golf course says "IT IS TOTALLY HIS FAULT THAT YOU CANNOT PLAY GOLF!!!"
Right now a lot of ISPs can hit Cogent's old pricing (and Cogent just cannot go any lower than they already are) so a lot if ISPs will just pass on Cogent and go for someone with a better record.
There is a lot more to the story that we don't know about, and since these agreements are generally done under a NDA we will never know for sure what exactly is happening at Cogent.
Just a FYI: I work for a hosting company that has had some dealings with Cogent in the past.
Parent
The Customers Want the Sites Not Sprint or Cogent (Score:5, Insightful)
Sprint customers are buying access to sites on Cogent.
Nobody buys a Sprint or Cogent connection to get to Sprint or Cogent. They want the data from the content provider sites (pr0n and http://archive.org/ [archive.org] ).
Therefor Sprint is really profiting on people's desire to get to sites inside Cogent. If they cut off those sites people will drop them and get somebody else
who provides the access.
Parent
Re:They're back? (Score:5, Insightful)
Think of it this way: I am an apartment complex and I have an agreement to mow my neighbor's lawn and in exchange he shovels my sidewalk. It uses approximately the same amount of work. Now imagine my neighbor and all of his agreements are bought by the local golf course. Now the golf course now expects me to mow the entire course because the agreement was that they would shovel and I would mow. Cogent was the golf course, I am an ISP.
That is how the big carriers see it, but it is pure nonsense! Network A has a server on it and network B has a client (browser). Each has been paid by their customer to provide internet service. If A is sending a bunch of data over the peering connection w/ B, it's because B's customers asked for it. If A and B stop talking, both carrier's customers are no longer getting the full connectivity they paid for.
The only part that makes any sense in the various peering squabbles is paying for the upkeep of the peering link and trying to keep things so that the aggregate of the routes is more or less at the midpoint so each is bearing equal cost for equal benefit.
Keep in mind, often enough, a peering is nothing more than a cat 5 from one rack to the next rack over and a few lines in a configuration file.
As far as dealings with Cogent, they and MANY other carriers have deeply screwed up accounting departments amongst other problems.
Parent
Folk-Lore. (Score:4, Insightful)
"It will be interesting to see how Cogent responds."
"When the internet senses damage it routes around it." Oh wait!
Err, no. (Score:3, Insightful)
So yeah, some routers might need to update their tables, but otherwise, we're still connected. Proving the ARPANET design once again.
Re:Err, no. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Cogent can pay any ISP they want (Score:4, Interesting)
The AC who posted Article #25607411 [slashdot.org] misses the point that Sprint customers can't reach Cogent customers and vice versa unless somebody connects some routes. Users of other ISPs are fine, and small ISPs that have Sprint as an upstream are likely to multihome to multiple upstream carriers for reliability, so they're ok. The two main parties that are affected are Sprint wireless customers and hosting companies that only use Cogent (a fairly large market, because Cogent's per-megabit charges are cheap), and Sprint thinks the latter are more likely to pressure Cogent into fixing it.
From Sprint's perspective, Cogent can buy transit from almost any ISP they want and that'll fix the problem. Sprint could also buy transit from somebody connected to Cogent, but Tier 1 carriers have ego problems about this, and of course if Sprint were willing to do that they'd have been willing to continue free peering with Cogent as well.
Sprint wireless users can also tunnel through various tunnel servers to get to non-Sprint parts of the net. Possibly "Google Secure Access" will work (it's free, intended for users of Google's Wifi services, but may be more generally usable), and there's the Tor Anonymity Network [wikipedia.org].
Parent
Re:Err, no. (Score:5, Informative)
Multihoming doesn't fix the problem. It does double your costs.
For example, I know one site that was multi-homed. They had Sprint and a regional provider. The regional provider was de-peered by Cogent about a year ago, and the regional provider only buys transit from Sprint (they peer with many other networks).
Guess what, he couldn't reach the University he just executed a major contract with -- they are single-homed through Cogent.
And what do end users do? Multihome?
Parent
Re:Folk-Lore. (Score:4, Insightful)
Except for sprint customers, usually. Which advertised the peered routes, and which usually take quite a bit of time to get updated routing... I'm afraid that's the whole point. Quite a few depeerings in the past were politically motivated, well not quite politically, but market-share-driven. I thought the MCI/Uunet fiasco would have ended such practices.
Parent
Re:Folk-Lore. (Score:5, Informative)
My lay understanding of the situatin is that, once routing tables are changed to reflect the new topography, most everything goes back to normal
My just as lay understanding is that that would be the case were Sprint not actively filtering [wikipedia.org] routes from Cogent.
In other words, assuming I understand the situation right, Sprint are taking active measures to make sure that routes that originate in the Cogent network never reach Sprint's customers.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think you mean the other way around; Cogent filtered AS1239 paths, blamed Sprint, and offered Sprint customers free circuits. Cogent customers were still visible via XO through Sprint during this mess, but Cogent filtered the traffic.
Re:Folk-Lore. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you mean the other way around; Cogent filtered AS1239 paths, blamed Sprint, and offered Sprint customers free circuits. Cogent customers were still visible via XO through Sprint during this mess, but Cogent filtered the traffic.
Right, I think I'm starting to understand. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Over one year ago, cogent got free peering from Sprint, and subsequently filtered out all alternative routes to Sprint. I read this as Cogent blackmailing Sprint: if you disconnect us, there will be no connectivity between your customers and ours.
Last week, Sprint decided not to go with Cogent's blackmail, and disconnected Cogent with no advance notice to their (Sprint's) customers.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Holy Shit (Score:5, Informative)
Cogent press release: "Sprint [severed its Internet connection to Cogent] in violation of a contractual obligation to exchange traffic with Cogent on a settlement free peering basis."
FACT: At no time did Sprint and Cogent enter into a contract for settlement free peering. In 2006, Sprint and Cogent formed a commercial trial agreement that ended in September 2007. Cogent was unable to satisfy the agreed-upon traffic exchange criteria within the trial agreement, yet refused to pay Sprint or disconnect from Sprint's network.
If what Sprint says is true, Cogent has just dug itself a hole and not just in the court room.
Either there was a settlement free peering contract in place, or there wasn't.
Cogent can spin all it wants, but they aren't actually supposed to lie in a press release.
Cogent's press release would definitely constitute a material statement, which means they could be hearing from the SEC for lying to the public and investors.
Re:Holy Shit (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Holy Shit (Score:4, Informative)
You are correct. Don't forget Telia, AOL, Teleglobe, and France Telecom either.
Parent
Re:Holy Shit (Score:5, Insightful)
You usually end up as the red-headed step child when your competitors charge $50-100/Mb for connectivity and you charge $4.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How soon we forget:
http://ask.slashdot.org/askslashdot/05/10/05/2247207.shtml?tid=95
Re:Holy Shit (Score:5, Insightful)
If Cogent was your sole provider at this point, you'd either be an idiot or completely out of touch. This isn't the first time this has happened with Cogent. It isn't the second either. And it surely won't be the last.
Sprint doesn't get off so easy though. They pulled what amounts to a "sure, try it risk free for 3 months. Cancel if you don't like it, but if you fail to inform us in triplicate you owe us hundreds of thousands of dollars." That's a crock.
Nobody who initiates a settlement-free peering agreement intends to pay for a transit connection if the trial period doesn't work out. If there was a serious chance that Cogent could be convinced to buy service from Sprint, Sprint would never have agreed to peering since the two types of connection are mutually incompatible. And Sprint damn well knows it.
Then too, Sprint probably decided to block Cogent's routes from the rest of their peers. Otherwise I expect Cogent would simply have routed around the downed connections. That was a step too far, one which makes Sprint a dangerous selection as your sole carrier as well.
Parent
Re:Holy Shit (Score:5, Informative)
That's not what Sprint said - "Following a three-month commercial trial agreement during June - September 2007, the peering trial data indicated that Cogent did not meet the minimum traffic exchange criteria agreed to by both parties. As a result, settlement-free peering was not established and Cogent was notified in writing of these results." Given Cogent's history, it seems that Sprint was just covering its bases and trying to find a way to work with Cogent instead of just telling them to go fark themselves when they first approached Sprint about a settlement-free agreement.
Parent
Re:Dishonorable (Score:5, Informative)
After 3 months, the traffic from Cogent wasn't as much as Cogent claimed it would be, and Sprint opted not to continue with the creation of a real settlement-free peering contract.
Nobody pulled out of anything, Cogent claimed their network passed more traffic than it really did and Sprint had no motivation to let them leech for free.
Parent
Re:Holy Shit (Score:5, Interesting)
Is anyone actually surprised that Cogent is being dicks again? I'm going to believe Sprint's side of the story because: 1) they don't get into peering fights every other month, 2) they don't release nasty press releases about their former peer, and 3) they don't route traffic for their former peer into a black hole and blame someone else. If you or I didn't pay our bills, we'd be nuked *way* faster than Sprint is saying they gave Cogent. The length of time is probably because Sprint knows that Cogent would be assholes about it and that it would break traffic in a bad way.
So many people from the previous thread put all the blame on Sprint because of that horrible press release Cogent had ready the second the last circuit was turned off. Did they all forget that this is Cogent the king of depeering bitch fights that we're talking about? They always cry foul and scream about it every time they get depeered.
Parent
Re:Holy Shit (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Holy Shit (Score:5, Informative)
granted, if you own a larger network, you can extort smaller networks (and all of their customers) for money. but that makes Sprint the asshole, not Cogent. claiming that Cogent is in the wrong just because they've been de-peered in the past without actually examining the details of the conflict to see whether Sprint's claims make any sense is rather naive. this isn't like high school where one's merits are based on their popularity. getting picked on often doesn't automatically make you wrong.
If you have a larger network then you're probably handling more traffic on behalf of a smaller network than vice versa. By your rationale, any company or person that sets up a small network (e.g. 3 computers) should be able to get free connectivity from sprint or another backbone provider.
The way the peering thing usually works is when companies A and B decide to peer, they track the traffic that they pass to each other. If the traffic is roughly even then they don't charge each other for the peering. On the other hand, if things are lopsided such as 80% of the traffic being company A handling requests for company B's users, then company B usually is required to pay for the excess bandwidth that it's using.
Parent
Yep (Score:5, Informative)
It may help people to think of it on a personal level: So suppose you and I are neighbors. I have a nice business class cable connection, you have a nice business class DSL connection. Now turns out we do a lot of traffic between each other, which doesn't go particularly fast since it goes over the net but also since it turns out our connections are routed very differently and have a lot if hops to get to each other. So being geeks, we decide to fix this by peering our networks. We connect up a Cat-5 connection between our houses and set up routers to handle things. What's more, we share each other's net. So traffic goes out the connection based on who's got the shortest route. Also if one connection goes out, we use the other one exclusively till it comes back up.
Now we don't charge each other for this service. We both pay our own costs. I pay for my line, you pay for yours and so on. Hence we are peers. The reason we do this is we both benefit equally form the relationship.
Ok so then another neighbor finds out about this. He's on dialup and would like something better. We say sure you can join our network, but you have to pay. Why? Well he isn't providing us any value. He's just going to cancel his dialup and use our network. That's great, but he's got to help with the costs. Also, he doesn't have anything we want, we aren't going to be accessing his files, so there is no peer situation. We sell him access.
In the case of Cogent it would be like a 4th neighbor. He asks to peer. He says he's got a wireless connection to a great provider, plus lots of stuff we'd want. So we decide to let him on as a peer. However, it turns out to be false. His link is slow and high latency, so we end up just using ours. Further he just uses our connections, since they are better for everything. Finally, we find little data from him we want. So we tell him "Know what? You can pay us to stay on our network, but we aren't letting you peer because we don't get anything out of it."
The idea of peering is just that: You connect to your peers, you equals. Those networks that have data you want, and you have data they want. Since it is an equal agreement, both sides bear their own costs. In unequal agreements, like you purchasing a connection from your ISP, then you have to pay.
Parent
It's not a matter of what you have (Score:4, Informative)
It's what your network does, over all. A datacentre still pays for all their bandwidth. It isn't a situation of "consumers pay, providers don't." What it comes down to is if it is more advantageous to trade with someone, rather than both of you going through a third party. Remember you can peer on any level. My neighborhood peering thing could be a reality, if people wanted to do so. As a practical matter I work for a university and we do peer with some institutions.
Basically it's a situation of how much data you need to get to and from network X, and how much it costs you and them to do so. If you are both going through another company, especially if you both have to pay that company, it may be in your best interests to peer your networks. However peering isn't free, you are paying for equipment and space and rights of way and such so that you can hook your networks together. So this is only worth it if the sharing is on equal ground. If it turns out that it isn't, well then maybe one side needs to pay.
Part of the equality thing isn't just direction of traffic, it is destination. If we peer our connections, as in my example, and 95% of the traffic you get from me is stuff on my network, well that's a useful peer to me. I cut down on my traffic to other networks, and you do the same. However if 95% of the traffic is in fact destined for other networks, then you are leeching off me, and should be paying. It isn't a useful peer if what you are doing is using that link just to get to other places. That just loads down my other links.
So that's how it works. The big networks peer with each other because they all have a lot of traffic that needs to flow to each other. It would be silly for AT&T to send all traffic for Sprint through Level 3, rather they just connect themselves and do it direct. The same thing can be true of smaller peers. Company A and Company B realize they do a lot of traffic, and thus setup a little peer network so they aren't loading up their Internet connections. However that only works when it is an equal share situation. If Sprint were to use AT&T's links mainly to contact other networks (especially large networks), AT&T would want to start charging for the links. Same deal if Company B jsut starts using the link to use Company A's bandwidth.
Parent
Re:Holy Shit (Score:4, Funny)
Wait a minute? Are you saying companies aren't allowed to just lie in public whenever they like? This doesn't seem to be enforced very often.
Parent
Small ISPs are the most vulnerable (Score:3, Interesting)
My ISP gets its connectivity from Cogent. As their customer I can connect to anywhere in the Internet EXCEPT those portions served by Sprint. Because of this corporate disagreement, I am cut off from my e-mail and from my Red Hat Network updates.
I agree with klapaucjusz (1167407) who perceptively asked if we needed regulation at the top carrier level. I agree, and plan to file a complaint with the FCC in the morning.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't understand how any of this requires government regulation. Cogent is supposed to provide internet access to users and other companies. They are not doing that, so they either need to find someone else to peer with, or be sued for breach of contract. I wonder how many companies and individuals Cogent services? I bet they would make other arrangements real fast if their phones were ringing off the hook and the postman delivered a truck-load of court summons.
Re:Small ISPs are the most vulnerable (Score:5, Informative)
Cogent could have, at any time during this depeering, allowed the sprint bound traffic to route through one of their other peering points. This would have allowed their customers, including yourself, to continue to reach the entire internet even though it may have been slightly slower. It's the beauty of the internet, they could have easily routed the traffic elsewhere but they CHOSE to route sprint to a blackhole route.
Parent
Re:Small ISPs are the most vulnerable (Score:5, Informative)
This is not accurate.
When you peer with another network, it goes like this:
1) you only exchange routes for your customers.
2) Your routes should not be visible to the peer through any other transit or peering connections.
So if Sprint and Cogent were just exchanging routes and the peer session was removed, Cogent and Sprint no longer see each other. For them to see each other again to happen, one of them would have to pay someone else for the transit.
Sprint is not going to pay for transit. Cogent doesn't want to, or apparently, they don't even want to to do settlement based peering.
Regulation might be ok if it opened the tier 1 peering to more networks. Forcing large networks to peer with much smaller network is shifting the cost of transporting that traffic long distances to the larger network.
Equal size networks setting up connections in multiple locations should have the same benefit and cost to both networks.
Parent
Re:Small ISPs are the most vulnerable (Score:5, Interesting)
You don't seem to understand how peering works. Pushing the Sprint conntent to any of there other peers would have violated there peering agreements and they would not have seen the routes from those peers anyway. The internet only works because all the teir 1's have statement free peering with all the other teir 1's (teir one being the engineering definition of not having any transit links not because the sales guy said so) Transit is when you pay somebody to take your traffic often you cant switch from transit to peering with the same company (if you want ot become a teir 1 you will probably have to pay a 3rd party for transit during the transition). On a peering session you normally only get routes from your peers network and people that are paying them for transit, this means you never get the full 250k or so routes from any one peer.
The tHing you have to realize is every other tier 1 hates cogent, they are one ones that figured out that bandwidth really does not have a high cost if you build out your network smartly. Reliability has it's costs but every carrier has there bad days some more than others. Cogent really only provides service where they can do it cheaply mostly major metro areas especially big shared office buildings. It's dirt cheap bandwidth if you can get it (think $400-1000 for a 100mb connection with no caps etc) and many business are willing to trade some reliability issues with cogent for paying less than there T1 for a pipe 66 times bigger. That being said your silly if cogent or sprint is your only provider.
As a side note this is one of the reasons to avoid tier 1 carriers they are fine if you have at least 2 of them but if you can only have one connection get a tier 2 thats paying 3 or more tier ones for bandwidth and has the capacity to loose any one carrier at any time. As a hint most tier one's have AS numbers below 3k.
Parent
Re:Small ISPs are the most vulnerable (Score:5, Informative)
As others have noted Sprint was routing Cogent traffic through XO, but Cogent was blackholing the return traffic. Had they updated their BGP the return traffic would have flowed and the end customers would have been unaffected.
Parent
Small ISPs need multihoming anyway (Score:5, Interesting)
If your ISP is only getting its connectivity from Cogent, and isn't homed to multiple upstream ISPs, then they're at risk from any technical problems their Cogent link has as well as from any business problems Cogent has. If they need any regulatory help from the FCC, it's a requirement for Sprint to give them free Clues, not for Sprint to give Cogent free connectivity.
The Internet's a lot more stable than when I got involved with it 25ish years ago, or when small ISPs were a dime a dozen a decade and a bit ago, but it's still not 100% perfect. Back in the mid-90s, small ISPs provided dialup and email service, and they usually bought their first upstream T1 line from the cheapest provider available, but if they stayed up and running for a few months and started to fill it up, they almost universally bought their next upstream T1 from a different provider, because Internet routing flapped all the time, and if you had two providers you were not only less susceptible to your connection failing, you were much less likely to lose connection to half the world whenever a butterfly flapped its wings near MAE-WEST. In fact most ISPs these days can give you a reasonable service level agreement and also a reasonable level of service, but your ISP needs some sort of redundant connection.
Of course, if you think this is a mess, just look at the shape the IPv6 world is in - randomly-connected archipelagos of random little islands, tunnelled together by a maze of twisty little passages.
(Disclaimer: I work for an ISP that's not part of this dispute, but this is entirely my own opinion, not theirs.)
Parent
Re:Small ISPs are the most vulnerable (Score:5, Informative)
Uh, because Sprint gave them a free trial then they refused to pay for over a year after they were notified they did not meet free peering requirements? How long can you not pay your bills before you get cut off?
Sprint did not cut off their customers; I am a Sprint customer who gets a full BGP table. I could still see Cogent and their customers through XO, but Cogent was dropping return traffic into a black hole.
Parent
Customers jumping ship? (Score:5, Insightful)
If I were a Cogent customer and unable to connect to the other half of the internet... I would bail and connect with another company that pays their bills. Contract or not - Cogent wouldn't get a dime from me after this B.S.
Where are the angered masses?
Related stories (Score:3, Funny)
Sprint Cuts Cogent Off the Internet [slashdot.org] 404 comments
Does that mean that /. is using Cogent now?
Looks like it's back up (Score:4, Interesting)
From what it looks like, the peering is back up. Internet Health Report [internetpulse.net]
Sprint has Restored Cogent's Connection (Score:5, Informative)
Not so fast. (Score:5, Interesting)
Cogent is a Tier 1 network service provider (weather or not Sprint and L3 want it to be).
Cogent offers great service at an unbeatable price (4-5 USD per Mbps as opposed to the 15-20 or so Sprint and competitors are charging).
How does Cogent do this? They focused early on metro ethernet services and wave division, instead of wasting money in legacy technologies. They kept their vision clear, and their staff small (under 500 employees).
Cogent is the type of NSP we want as a Tier 1. A very strong backer of Net Neutrality, and no intention of trying to get into the entertainment business unlike Verizon, AT&T, etc. Cogent has a goal of offering the best service at the lowest price (the end result being realistically moving the US forward in terms of available bandwidth).
If you take a look at the CAIDA rankings [http://as-rank.caida.org/], you'll see that Cogent has surpassed Verizon Business (was UUNET) and Global Crossing, and is now right behind Sprint.
Cogent is growing, and if Sprint doesn't do something they're going to loose their no. 3 spot to them. So their strategy is to make a power play and force Cogent into a Tier 2 spot and create uncertainty in the eyes of current and potential customers.
As much as Sprint would like to position itself as a provider for Cogent, it's not. Sprint is a peer for Cogent with Cogent being an equivalent size of the current Sprint network, and larger than many of Sprints other peers.
The idea that Sprint doesn't get as much out of peering with Cogent as Cogent does peering with Sprint is absurd and PR propaganda to try and look like this was anything other than a power-play to keep a competitor at bay.
It will be interesting to see how this goes in court. If I were a Sprint customer I would seriously consider moving to Cogent.
On a side note, Sprint is one of the major opponents against Net Neutrality. Combine that with the fact that Cogent is offering the same level of service for a third the cost, and it's not hard to see why Sprint is trying to take Cogent out of the picture.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you think the problem is bad, just wait until we've fixed it! (attributed to somebody or other). Think back, carefully. What proposed legislation has ever fixed an extant problem without making something else, and usually the original problem, worse?
Re:Do we need regulation? (Score:4, Insightful)
What proposed legislation has ever fixed an extant problem without making something else, and usually the original problem, worse?
In many European countries, legislation has forced the incumbent telecom operators to allow newcomers to provide the service they were refusing to provide themselves. Probably the most extreme example is that of France, where France Télécom refused to provide ADSL service in order to avoid competing with their profitable ADSL and T1 businesses.
Parent
Re:Do we need regulation? (Score:5, Insightful)
Two countries sharing a massive border. One has a highly regulated banking sector, one preaches deregulation.
One has a catastrophic banking failure leading to necessary "socialization" of corporate losses. The other has the most stable banking system in the first world.
Screaming "regulation is bad" without considering the situation is duckspeak, and no more intelligent than saying "anything socialist is bad" or "windows is always bad" just because it appears to be a popular viewpoint.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Whose customers? The customers most affected are Cogent's customers, not Sprint's. If Sprint is to be believed, they have plenty of notice to Cogent before they disconnected them. But Cogent clearly failed to notify their customers, or make alternative arrangements.
Did you mean that Sprint should have notified Cogent's customers? How are they supposed to do that?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Um, how do you connect to the Entire internet? Can you define the internet? (hint, its not a series of tubes). Nobody could ever list that in a contract. I might have connections to L3, att, and cogent, but I can't guarantee that your packet will get through a backbone provider to a server in India. I couldn't even guarantee that the other companies I have connections to will constantly be working, and routing packets..
What does "entire Internet" mean? (Score:3, Insightful)
Assuming Sprint's press release is accurate (which, based on previous juvenile behavior by Cogent, I'm inclined to believe them), Cogent has effectively cut themselves off from the Internet.
Put simply, they've put their AS [wikipedia.org] onto the net without having the necessary routing arrangements in place. They are, at best, a kinda-sorta-maybe-if-you're-lucky part of the Internet right now. They want to be a transit provider without doing the messy stuff like getting contracts in place. Good luck with that.