Sprint Cuts Cogent Off the Internet 413
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."
Ah... that explains it (Score:5, Interesting)
Heh, I was wondering why scoreboard showed they were having issues:
http://scoreboard.keynote.com/scoreboard/Main.aspx [keynote.com]
*sigh*
So it wasn't just an outage.
Re:Ah... that explains it (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, right, sorry about that. Put "public" in for both the username and password.
Oh, good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh, good. (Score:5, Informative)
Don't be so quick to blame Sprint, especially since that's a Cogent PR release. They (Cogent) had fights with Level3 and AOL as well that had the same result: Customers of Sprint/Level3/AOL were cut off from Cogent.
Re:Oh, good. (Score:4, Insightful)
They (Cogent) had fights with Level3 and AOL as well that had the same result: Customers of Sprint/Level3/AOL were cut off from Cogent.
And they have had (so far) the same resolution - the connection was restored after enough high level customers told them to knock it off.
Cogent (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Cogent (Score:5, Funny)
Schaeffer, 52, sees that as both obsolete and silly, like an electric company trying to bill its customers more for kilowatts used gets broken down into ones and zeros, all networks serve only one purpose: moving those bits from one place to another.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I think they're trying to say that he enjoys hunting deer.
Renesys Blog article on the depeering (Score:3, Interesting)
Renesys [renesys.com] is a fairly neutral source for information about peering (as opposed to Cogent's press release, which is obviously their side of the story.) The Forbes article is good perspective, but it's from before Sprint dropped Cogent. BTW, Sprint and Cogent have only been peering for two years; before that Cogent had to pay to connect to them.
Re:Oh, good. (Score:5, Insightful)
except that wireless customers cant get to cogent either.
Re:Oh, good. (Score:5, Insightful)
so the excuse to not boycot sprint is that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing? fuck that, i'm boycotting sprint as an entire company.
Re:Oh, good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh, good. (Score:5, Insightful)
So the excuse to not boycot sprint is that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing?
If the hands are separated enough that they don't communicate about something like this, Sprint Wireless would still be in the wrong for failing to source out to an ISP that's capable of passing normal traffic, just like if they were separate companies. There's no excuse for this childish, petty nonsense.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If the hands are separated enough that they don't communicate about something like this,
Then an outright boycott of the company will help them better focus on their business obligations and customers.
Yup (ATT, too) (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. I had AT&T pull this bullshit on me when they screwed up my billing after a move. If it's got your brand on it, you'd better own it...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
My company's internet has been down all day, with only half the websites working. I wonder if the Sprint/Cogent tiff has anything to do with that?
And yet you still have bandwidth to get to slashdot.
Re:Oh, good. (Score:4, Interesting)
When we called Sprint's customer service department, they couldn't cancel the charges because nobody in the company was allowed to talk to the fraud investigation department. Nine months of complaints, refusals to pay, and BBB calls later, we finally got all the charges dropped, but I'll never work with Sprint again.
Re:Oh, good. (Score:4, Informative)
Why would you boycott sprint over this? Cause "they" blocked access to cogent customers? I remember level 3 blocking access to Cogent not too long ago, and several others in the past. I'm thinking that the company that keeps playing the victim is the one that needs to be taught a lesson..
Re:Oh, good. (Score:4, Informative)
Besides, I'm trying it right now and can't get to cogentco.com (though I can do just fine on my home broadband connection).
Re:Oh, good. (Score:5, Interesting)
Our company buys quite a bit of transit from Cogent, and Sprint's looking glass sites are showing a complete partition between the two. Also, Cogent has offered free 100Mbit connectivity to any on-net Sprint customers until the issue is resolved.
The free service is only if you're on-net (Score:3, Interesting)
One part of Cogent's business model is selling to multiple-tenant business buildings, where they can stick a router in the basement and run Fast Ethernet connections to multiple customers, and most of the 1300 buildings where they're on-net are either that kind of arrangement or else businesses they've built connections to directly (including some hosting centers.) For the MTU market, what this means is that all it costs them is some inside wiring and a bit of extra traffic on their free peering links.
Bac
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, I'm just going to tell them, I don't do business with dicks, and what you did was a dick move.
So what is Sprint providing its customers? (Score:5, Insightful)
If I'm a Sprint customer - I'd be calling Sprint right now and ask
"What the hell am I buying from you every month? .... etc etc "
I thought I was buying a DIA circuit - as in Direct Internet Access - but apparently you don't exactly do that. That's a breach of contract - that's a violation of your SLA - I want out of my contract now
Am I nuts here? It's either the freaking internet or it isn't - WTF?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You'd probably want to check the SLA first. Most have provisions that don't apply to this, at least contractually. As an end-customer you'd be buying access to their public network -- if they choose to depeer or black hole another network, they're usually within the right to do that since THEY own the network you're connecting to. Bad business sense yeah, but otherwise it's probably not breaking any contractual agreement with a customer.
Re:So what is Sprint providing its customers? (Score:5, Informative)
SLA's typically cover "best effort" internet.
Yeah, stuff will go down and goobers will run into telephone poles and backhoes, oh the backhoes!
But, cutting off a huge network because your lawyer wanted to go on vacation when THE SHIT WOULD WORK HAD YOU NOT DELIBERATELY TURNED IT OFF.
That ain't "best effort", that's "dick move".
As such, it's breach of contract with every single one of their customers at once. It would be in their rights to all simply stop paying the bill, I wonder how long their cashflow would last? More than likely the VP or board or whatever would pull their head out of their asses and realize the back room IT guy that will likely hear about this has a big voice in the tech stuff companies buy... and they would fix it.
Re:So what is Sprint providing its customers? (Score:4, Insightful)
Step 5: Watch Sprint send your now unpaid bill to collections agent as your credit score takes a tumble.
You can't always go all gung-ho and declare breach of contract, reverse charges, etc. Their contracts were drafted up by rather expensive lawyers and they generally are setup such that YOU are held to a lot, but they're not going to be liable for much. That's just the perks of having the lawyers available.
Reversing the charges also isn't a good idea. It's not an action that is free of repercussions.
empty threats (Score:5, Funny)
I thought I was buying a DIA circuit - as in Direct Internet Access - but apparently you don't exactly do that. That's a breach of contract - that's a violation of your SLA - I want out of my contract now
Sprint's reply: "Okay *flip*. Call us when you realize that getting a T1/T3 takes weeks. By the way, we charge a $1000 installation fee."
That is also a breach of contract (Score:4, Insightful)
You'll discover with big lines that the providers have a good level of things they have to do for you. The bigger the line, the more they are bound by. IF they pull shit like that, well it's something that can get them hit with a large suit in court. They don't get to just cut things off if they are annoyed with you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So what is Sprint providing its customers? (Score:5, Interesting)
Funny how history repeats itself, especially in Sprint's case. In 1996, Sean Doran (SprintLink senior network architect) decided CIX-W peering was no longer cool and dropped peering, causing one hell of a black hole. From my recollection, it was the first instance where open routing was disabled due to political or commercial objectives, and unfortunately for Sprint, it came at a time where Bob Collett (then head of SprintLink) was trying to promote Sprint's openness and participation in the community. Bob overruled his engineer and routing was restored several days later.
Since that point, BGP black holes have continued, usually to the detriment of customers. BBN Planet, Exodus and numerous others played the game presuming that content was more important than eyeballs or vice versa. The fallacy in their model is that content without consumer is as useless as consumer without content. Until they establish that understanding, neither unbalanced provider will succeed.
Re:So what is Sprint providing its customers? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you are NUTS!
Customers have a reasonable expectation of what services they are buying. If there is fine print or bait and switch tactics involved, or blatant disregard for service contract terms, there is legal reason to sue. In the USA we have lemon laws for cars and the same intent applies to everything in commercial business under the general terms of the law. Blatant theft of funds under the guise of contractual terms does not count. It may take time to prove it in court, but what I'm saying is true. Internet is NOT a vague term. Internet means what you get at your home PC screen. "Limited Internet" means something different. The promise of something good which is not delivered is just as wrong as snake oil salesmen that promise a cure. Obviously medical claims seem to fall under different rulings, but the intent of the law, and it's execution are the same. Fine print does not excuse you from delivering what your marketing group promised. ever.
Re:So what is Sprint providing its customers? (Score:5, Informative)
Those machines are not on the internet, they connect to the internet.
Probably(hopefully) a troll, but I'll bite.
There is no "internet". There is only progressively smaller networks. The ISPs all own their own networks, they communicate with one another via an IBX, or a "meet-me-room". Your company's LAN is a network just like theirs, only smaller (well...depending on what company you work for..some can get to the size of a small ISP). The fact that you don't have an agreement with your ISP to route their traffic to your machines does not mean that they are not part of "the internet".
Think about it like this:
There is an office building, each floor is a separate company. Each company runs their own network. After a while, a couple of the companies decide that they should share information with one another, so they do. They connect their networks to one another and start routing between them. Things are good. Now a few more companies jump on board, before you know it, 40 out of the 50 networks in the building are all talking to one another. THAT is the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
I think he's talking in a more general sense. But you are correct in that definition of the term!
Re:So what is Sprint providing its customers? (Score:5, Funny)
Can you write it again as a car analogy? I'm lost here.
Let's build one phrase by phrase ... I'll start: (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
NO NO NO!
The tubes are in the radios. Oh wait, they stopped putting tubes in car radios. OK, the tubes are in the tires. Oh wait, they stopped putting tubes in tires, too. Oh hell, GET OFF MY LAWN!
Re:So what is Sprint providing its customers? (Score:5, Insightful)
You and everyone in your neighborhood has a car. You and that hot MILF down the street decide to install CB Radios so that your wife won't see you hooking up with the MILF by looking at your cell phone bill. That goes on for a while and then the MILF wants to set up a threesome with her best friend Jane, so Jane gets a CB, too. Eventually y'all progress to a huge orgy, so everyone in the neighborhood has a CB Radio. Now *THAT'S* the Internet (in more ways than one).
Layne
Re:So what is Sprint providing its customers? (Score:5, Interesting)
Asshats (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder how many customers these two companies will have to lose before they realize that the right solution is to sack the lawyers.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Asshats (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Asshats (Score:4, Insightful)
It is not Cogent's fault.
This is (yet again) a case of the incumbent telecoms companies having a hissy fit because Cogent's prices are so much lower than theirs.
They are trying to damage Cogent's reputation as a business tactic.
Guess what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Lawyers don't cause litigation. Parties cause litigation.
IAAL. The matters which go to court are the ones where the parties are unreasonable, overly aggressive, or genuinely have a dispute about something which is worth money to both of them. It may also amaze you to learn that sometimes parties actually do breach contracts or otherwise fuck one another over, and yet when caught out they don't automatically roll over and return what they owe to the person they have wronged.
I have no influence whatsoever over whether they end up in Court. I advise my clients about their rights and prospects, and follow their instructions.
On the whole, reasonable, intelligent parties = no ligitation = no lawyers.
Re:Guess what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Now granted, you may not be that type of lawyer, but there is a reason the devil is sometimes portrayed as a lawyer. Take responsibility for your actions and you will become more powerful than any average lawyer. You can't always blame the other guy.
Lawyers and clients (Score:5, Interesting)
Re - "It is the wish of my client." -- I'm reminded of what Richard Nixon's lawyer [wikipedia.org] famously said while arguing before the US Supreme Court in US v. Nixon [wikipedia.org]: "The President wants me to argue that he is as powerful a monarch as Louis XIV, only four years at a time, and is not subject to the processes of any court in the land except the court of impeachment." He knew it was a nutty position to take, so he explicitly stated that it was his client's position, not his.
Re:Lawyers and clients (Score:4, Insightful)
Wrong. A lawyer is like a doctor. Its someone you can go to for 100% trust and confidentiality, because you NEED their advice on sensitive matters.
I know my doctor isn't going to call my wife up with a line like "Well I can't in clear concience keep treating the clap that this cheating fucker picked up from those hookers, and I think you should divorce him."
I know my lawyer is going to represent me to the best of his ability and keep his goddamn opinions to himself unless I ask for them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And again, there are laws covering doctor-patient confidentiality, ditto with legal counsel. "Ratting your out" is covered by law, as this is not how we want our legal system to work.
Our lawyers are expected to NOT pass personal judgement and represent us to the best of our ability, and we as a society have created laws to ensure that any "IANAL" shouting layman can be properly represented. This brings me back to the OP, who claimed that someones laywer should have "quit on the spot" and claimed his client
Re:Lawyers and clients (Score:5, Insightful)
Therefore betraying both his client and his professional duty. It wouldn't have been a very ethical thing to do at all, and certainly wouldn't have given him any grounds to call anyone else a traitor.
The legal system is built on the premises that no one is guilty until proven so in a court of law, and that even traitors deserve to have defence counsel, especially when they haven't yet been proven to be traitors by said court. What you are suggesting is a lynch mob killing people they have deemed enemies of state without giving them a chance to defend themselves.
The lawyer did his duty, which was also the right thing to do. Hate Nixon and his deeds as much as you want, but that is no excuse to suppress his right to a fair trial. The second you do so, for any reason, your precious Republic is already gone and replaced with rule by arbitrary whims of whoever happens to be the most powerful at the moment; no different than Louis's France, really.
Any non-dictatorial form of government requires rule of law, because the only alternative is rule by someone's whims. Rule of law requires fair trials even to the worst scumbags, because otherwise it can be circumvented by declaring someone a scumbag. Fair trial requires that your defense attorney and everyone else acting on your behalf keep on doing that work to the best of their ability, no matter how many vomit bags they might need to use in the process, because otherwise declaring you scumbag tilts the odds against you, thus circumventing the rule of law.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Any non-dictatorial form of government requires rule of law, because the only alternative is rule by someone's whims. Rule of law requires fair trials even to the worst scumbags, because otherwise it can be circumvented by declaring someone a scumbag. Fair trial requires that your defense attorney and everyone else acting on your behalf keep on doing that work to the best of their ability, no matter how many vomit bags they might need to use in the process, because otherwise declaring you scumbag tilts the odds against you, thus circumventing the rule of law.
Substitute "scumbag" with "witch", "communist", "paedophile", "terrorist" or whatever the latest bogeyman is. Very accurate.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The UK is doing better [iht.com] lately.
You know, this kind of article really depresses me. Why is it that whenever there's some common sense and decency in our government that it's found in the archaic hold-overs from feudal traditions rather than the people we elected?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I dunno... darth vader became pretty powerful by *not* taking responsibility for his actions.
Re:Guess what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Lawyers don't cause litigation. Parties cause litigation.
Lawyers, however, enable litigation. In fact, for some lawyers, that *is* their business. You can talk in abstractions all you like, but the main difference between mathematicians and lawyers is that the mathematician's love for bizarre, pedantic arguments stays in the ivory towers. Lawyers do the same thing having massively damaging affects on the real world. Sure, some douche hired a lawyer to push some ludicrous case, and he's a douche. No argument there, but when a lawyer who's good enough at his trade argues a bullshit case convincingly that can change the way the law is applied to everyone in incredibly destructive ways. Take the mockery that's been made of the interstate commerce clause alone. Bad lawyers doing bad things that has cost the country incalculable amounts of money, integrity and damn near anything else you'd care to mention.
On the whole, reasonable, intelligent parties = no ligitation = no lawyers.
But your calculation is incomplete. Why aren't the ridiculous cases refused? Because while *you* might possess ethics, there are plenty of people who don't. Some of those people are lawyers. So even if the rest of the people were sane and decent, the sleazebag lawyers would be chasing those ambulances and working to convince the weak willed and stupid that they're owed. That's how they make a living, after all.
They also would work to arrange new ways of creating conflicts. That's just basic common sense, coupled with a society which puts profit above all and in which buying the better lawyer buys the better "justice".
Re:Guess what? (Score:5, Funny)
"is that the mathematician's love for bizarre, pedantic arguments stays in the ivory towers."
You've obviously never had a mathematician over for dinner.
Re:Guess what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Lawyers, however, enable litigation. In fact, for some lawyers, that *is* their business. You can talk in abstractions all you like, but the main difference between mathematicians and lawyers is that the mathematician's love for bizarre, pedantic arguments stays in the ivory towers. Lawyers do the same thing having massively damaging affects on the real world. Sure, some douche hired a lawyer to push some ludicrous case, and he's a douche. No argument there, but when a lawyer who's good enough at his trade argues a bullshit case convincingly that can change the way the law is applied to everyone in incredibly destructive ways. Take the mockery that's been made of the interstate commerce clause alone. Bad lawyers doing bad things that has cost the country incalculable amounts of money, integrity and damn near anything else you'd care to mention.
I am a lawyer (a litigator, specifically) and a mathematician, so I question your dichotomy between the two. To over-generalize the contributions of one profession or the other on society is specious. To rebut your bald statement about the destructive nature of lawyers, it's worth noting that lawyers are responsible for: creating civil liberties such as the right for women and the right for 'colored' people to vote and attend school with white people; writing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; defending Galileo Galilei when he published a "truth" (mathematics) when the church persecuted him for challenging their proprietary access to absolute "truth". As a generalization, mathematicians contributed to the discovery of the atomic bomb, and every other weapon ever created. More accurately, both have positive and negative effects on society (though economists might argue that because more lawyers are employed than mathematicians and generally better remunerated, they by definition have a more positive effect on society; the counter-argument is that they, like big corporations, rent-seek, vis-a-vis Ann Kruger's thesis)
Further, litigation is convincing a state (which has a monopoly on legal force) that they should enact legal force in your favour. Lawyers don't enable litigation as a form of enforceable dispute resolution, the rule of law does (i.e. the grant of state monopoly over legal force). What are the alternatives? Vigilantism? As well, the vast, vast, vast majority of lawyers don't practice any form of litigation. Only barristers (i.e. counselors-at-law) litigate; around 90% o lawyers practice as solicitors (attorneys-at-law) and never see the inside of a courtroom.
Finally, some attribute the commerce clause (and WTO/GATT-like reductions in interstate discriminatory trade practices) with the creation of more wealth in the United States than any other law in the US federation. I believe Thatcher argued that it was civil liberties. I imagine it was a combination of those two.
But your calculation is incomplete. Why aren't the ridiculous cases refused? Because while *you* might possess ethics, there are plenty of people who don't. Some of those people are lawyers. So even if the rest of the people were sane and decent, the sleazebag lawyers would be chasing those ambulances and working to convince the weak willed and stupid that they're owed. That's how they make a living, after all.
Points relevant:
1. The vast, vast majority of lawyers are ethical and have ethical clients, and to deny these people legal representation is to deny them access to justice;
2. It is unethical to deny legal representation to someone just because you do not agree with their position - it is the duty of legal counsel to advise them why you believe their position is wrong;
3. Defending a position is not the same as agreeing with it- unpopular positions (e.g. insurance companies defending against injured people making claims) have important functions (i.e. keeping insurance rates low, preventing fraud ---- fraud on insurance companies is a much, much, much bigger problem than fraud by insurance com
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
To over-generalize the contributions of one profession or the other on society is specious.
I'm not over generalizing, or even generalizing at all. A Mathematician pursuing his profession doesn't radically alter the structure of society. Engineers and physicists are more likely to. A Lawyer pursuing his profession can and sometimes does, often for the worse.
To rebut your bald statement about the destructive nature of lawyers, it's worth noting that lawyers are responsible for: creating civil liberties such
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe that with regard to prosecution of crimes and civil litigation, the mentality that you describe is probably the result of wanting to give aggrieved parties their day in court. Some cases may appear cut-and-dry, but aren't; looking at events in retrospective makes it easy for us to judge unfairly. If judges agree to hear cases that turn out to be absurd, I suspect it is because they believe, as I do, that it is better to err on the side of making the process of law available than to err on the si
Here we go (Score:2, Insightful)
Nah. (Score:3, Insightful)
It didn't work with AOL. Companies trying to pull such stunts will be out of business faster than you can say "TCP/IP"
Something is Fishy Here (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Have you been using the same Slashdot I've been on?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the Sprint/Cogent war has caused a partition in Slashdot too?
Re:Something is Fishy Here (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, based on all the past depeering wars Cogent has been in and/or started, I'm leaning towards "Cogent is being a dick again". Especially since they're doing the exact same thing they did with Level3: offering customers of their competitor free service. The story is a press release from Cogent; it's completely one-sided. As I post this, there is no statement from Sprint.
note to self (Score:5, Insightful)
boycot sprint for fracturing the internet
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:note to self (Score:5, Interesting)
I think what happened in Monticello, MN with the city laying down their own fiber when TDS telcom (the local telco) refused to is definitely a step in that direction...
Re:note to self (Score:5, Informative)
What happens when Cogent gets bored with Sprint and gets bitchy with your new choice? This is not the first time Cogent has been in the same situation. Level3, TeliaSonera, and AOL come to mind. I wouldn't be so quick to blame Sprint based on a one-sided Cogent press release.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This one just came across on NANOG: Wrestling With the Zombie: Sprint Depeers Cogent, Internet Partitioned [renesys.com]
Affecting other ISPs (Score:3, Informative)
A table is worth a thousand pictures... (Score:5, Informative)
Neutrality (Score:5, Interesting)
This is what the world might look like without Net Neutrality.
Re:Neutrality (Score:5, Informative)
Net neutrality can't force tier1/2 network carriers to peer.
Re:Neutrality (Score:4, Interesting)
If there exists no route from me to another server on the Internet and the reason that route doesn't exist is due to my ISP, I say that ISP has violated Net Neutrality. However, since as far as I know Net Neutrality currently has no legal definition, this is purely an issue of network ethics rather than an issue of law.
Re:Neutrality (Score:5, Informative)
Cogent does not buy transit [0] , they've become Tier 1, my guess is Sprint isn't happy with how much traffic is flowing over some connections and wants money (think: paid peering).
[0] http://www.renesys.com/blog/2008/06/cogent-becomes-transitfree.shtml [renesys.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is what the world might look like without Net Neutrality.
Oh please. Doesn't the internet route around damage?
Just because there isn't a straight line between Sprint and Cogent doesn't mean the internet is fucked.
Now all you low ping bastards are high ping bastards until the two companies kiss and make up.
Now if you can explain how exactly Net Neutrality will prevent corporate pissing contests, please do.
Otherwise -1 Overrated.
Re:Neutrality (Score:5, Informative)
Not when Sprint is actively blackholing and pretending that the data went through, as they are now.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
BGP will automatically route around this "damage".
Note however, in some cases there IS only one route. There are not major backbone lines running along every interstate and state highway like you seem to think.
Sometimes, the data would need to cross an ocean for the "other" route, which works for smaller amounts of data, but not two companies worth of peering points.
Headline is wrong (Score:4, Funny)
Cogent runs the second largest tier-1 backbone on the planet and it is widely used by the adult industry. The headline should read:
Sprint cockpunches own customers by disconnecting them from porn.
/I run a few dozen porn servers on Cogent links
//Sprint can suck my balls
Re:Headline is wrong (Score:4, Funny)
Sprint can suck my balls
They can't reach them because you're on a Cogent link.
Re:Headline is wrong (Score:5, Informative)
AOL repeered with Cogent something like a year ago. They were the last holdout and once that happened, Cogent was no longer paying anyone for transit and were therefore a full tier-1. Regardless of their peering status, they own and operate the second largest capacity network in the world. Traceroutes over the last couple of years would seem to indicate that they are servicing a fairly large number of eyeball networks in Europe these days as well as content networks all over the world. They are now sitting at the grownup's table and are no longer just a "discount" provider.
This is not new (Score:2, Interesting)
When my local phone company was having a labour dispute, they blocked the union website. Granted, this incident appears to be on a much larger scale.
My ISP at the time (Interbaun, recently bought by Uniserve) was also affected: They resell the Telus ADSL sevice (because the phone company owns the lines).
http://thetyee.ca/News/2005/08/04/TelusCensor/
According to the link I Dug up, it was back in 2005.
Re:This is not new (Score:4, Informative)
When my local phone company was having a labour dispute, they blocked the union website.
That is true, but leaves out some rather important details -- like the fact that the blocked website contained photos, addresses, and phone numbers of company managers and of workers who decided to cross the picket lines, and encouraged harassment of said individuals; and that threats of violence had been made against those managers and workers.
I'm not saying that Telus was right in blocking the website, but this wasn't merely a labour dispute.
Cogent depeering (Score:5, Informative)
Why does this story sound familiar...right, because I've heard it twice before. In 2003 it was AOL who cut them off [isp-planet.com], then in 2005 Level 3 [tmcnet.com] did the same thing.
While it seems Sprint is to blame here, when I see Cogent on the bad end of this so many times I can't help but wonder how many of these problems are brought on by their own management. It's not too often you get to see a pair of N/A results on the health report [internetpulse.net], but as you can read that's exactly what happened in 2005 as well.
Cogent is the one behind the story in link (Score:5, Informative)
What generally happens is that these tier 1 ISPs start off with equal amount of traffic that is being routed on behalf of the other ISP so they're both giving each other equal value. But that balance shifts over the years and you might have one ISP giving back 1/8th of what they're taking but the larger ISP is afraid of bad PR if they sever the connection. What might be needed is some sort of arbitrator who will look in to the facts without blaming one side or the other and just examine the facts and issue a recommendation. During that period of arbitration, the peering should continue so that customers aren't affected. If one ISP is found to be unworthy of a settlement peering arrangement because they're not holding up their end of the bargain, then they should be ordered to pay. If they refuse to pay, they deserve the blame for not paying for their Internet backbone.
Plenty of ISPs pay for their peering arrangements if they're not able to build some backbones of equal value. There's no reason some ISPs should get a settlement free peering if they're not willing to upgrade the Internet's backbone infrastructure.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This may be just the beginning of this stuff... (Score:5, Interesting)
As of now, there are no laws that an ISP has to deliver packets to any site, or any port.
IMHO, this is just the start of this type of activity. Eventually (assuming no regulation is done), ISPs will just refuse traffic from any domain who doesn't pay them a certain amount per bit per month. So, if Yahoo doesn't pay ISP "A" a fee so their bits will go across, all that ISP's subscribers would see either the destination unreachable, or even worse, be redirected to another site.
As of now, there are no laws against ISPs doing this. One could in the future attempt to go to their bank, be redirected to another bank because the other bank pays the ISP to carry their traffic and refuse the other bank access.
disruptive pricing (Score:5, Interesting)
All of Cogent's previous de-peering problems were ultimately due to their ultra low prices and their ability to steal customers. I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case again. Everyone has a lot of money to lose with Cogent's $6/Mbps pricing today. It undercuts everyone else. Cogent is basically wiping them clean (and not making much money in the process.) Ultimately they are banking on MUCH larger uses in the future. But their business model is not exactly profitable.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually Cogent's best price is $4/Mbps for 10Gb/s links.
Cogent's business model is much simpler than the other big ISPs. Unmetered IP transit. That's it.
No complex metering and billing and 10,000 products and services.
You can buy 10/100/1000/10000/40000 Mb/s ip transit blocks. that's it.
They are also not making any money.
That's the real problem.
The other big ISPs are used to fat profit margins while Cogent is apparently happy to break even (at best).
There is also a timing factor... while some other tier
NANOG Discussion (Score:5, Informative)
More discussion on NANOG Mailing List
10/30/08 Sprint / Cogent
http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/threads.html [merit.edu]
Tip: The probability of finding more accurate info on NANOG than here seems to be higher.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Unfortunately, that "probability" hasn't panned out...
Allow me to summarize the relevant threads on NANOG:
-Verizon de-peered Cogent
--Yup, sure did
--Same in Europe
--Pings fail
--Why?
---Because Cogent is inexpensive
---They're a feuding.
--They shouldn't do that
THE END
While you still have connectivity (Score:5, Funny)
OK everyone, while you still have connectivity login to your boxes and do your OS's/distribution's equivalent of "apt-get install UUCP"
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Because Sprint isn't merely unplugging things. they're actively blackholing (redirecting all traffic to nowhere) Cogent, which sabotages automatic route-around-damage systems, as it makes it seem like the data is being passed successfully.
UUCP allows you to pretty much manually route around by explicitly defining the path (a bangpath). Thanks to the wonderful redundancy of the internet, there is pretty much always a usable path between any 2 points, though said path may be ridiculously non-optimal, like g
Is This Criminal Fraud? (Score:3, Interesting)
Am I understanding this correctly? Sprint is reporting the packets as delivered but they are actually dropped? If so, why isn't this criminal fraud? If FedEx took your money, told you the package was delivered, but then threw the package away, there would be severe criminal and civil penalties. Existing law about lying and forgery needs to be applied to packet headers (also applies to the forged reset packets Comcast was using to throttle P2P traffic). If I'm misunderstanding the situation, I would appreciate it if someone could explain why.
Cogent is at fault (Score:4, Informative)
As always. They let so much garbage go through their network and don't maintain the throughput arrangements with other peers, which is why Telia kicked them off around a year ago.
I get calls each month from Cogent reps trying to offer me $6/meg uplinks. Of course they can provide bargain basement pricing when they basically steal bandwidth from their peers. Good for Sprint.
Invasion! (Score:3, Funny)
Disruption in communication can mean only one thing... Invasion
Cogent Disregards Agreement with Sprint (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, the question is, is our children learning? Your sentence makes no sense to people who know what "begs the question" means. You seem to think it means "raises the question", but it doesn't. Begging the question is making a circular statement to support an argument. The statement relies upon itself as proof. For example, the statement "Global warming is terr
Re:Ow My Foot (Score:5, Insightful)
HAS THE WHOLE WORLD GONE CRAZY? AM I THE ONLY ONE HERE WHO GIVES A SHIT ABOUT THE RULES? MARK IT ZERO! - Walter Sobchak
Re: (Score:3, Informative)