tkdslr
join:2004-04-24
Pompano Beach, FL Reviews:
 ·Speakeasy
4 edits | Seams to me that Level 3 commited a criminal act.. Little known to many is the Clayton Anti-trust act..
It covers anti-competitive actions in general.
Note: Monopoly status is not a requirement to invoke the Clayton Anti-trust act.
From what I hear..
Level-3 has taken this disconnection issue a step further. (It's one thing to no longer offer transit across a ones network. It's quite a different story to BLOCK access to a group of a competitor's customers all together.)
It seams that Level 3 is still advertising some erroneous BGP routes to Covad and then dead ending them. (I.E. Reports of unreachable websites, traffic which would be normally be rerouted through one of the NAP's.)
Additionally they're blocking Level 3 customers from reaching Covad customers and vice-a-versa.
Both are criminal anti-competitive acts which damage Cogent and BOTH companies customers. I.E. Level 3 is committing a criminal act by defrauding it's own customers and blocking their access to Cogent based websites. As Level 3 has sold it's customers Internet access, both directions, to the internet as a WHOLE, not just portions of it.
If I were Cogent, I would present this to a federal judge and slap an injunction on LEVEL 3 pronto. |
|
| Re: Seams to me a Level 3 commited a crminal act.. Well, I'll be. Level3 reconnected Cogent at 3:40 EDT.
»status.cogentco.com/ |
|
 JoeOnSunsetDoublethink Is Doubleplus Ungood.Premium
join:2002-11-25
Ormond Beach, FL | reply to tkdslr
Do you mean Cogent? |
|
| reply to tkdslr
Looks like they might be reconnected. InternetHealthReport.com is showing connectivity of 36%, whereas it has been 0% the last few days. |
|
|
|
mishaqPremium
join:2004-01-24
Richardson, TX | reply to tkdslr
There are plenty of large tier one data providers, and if an ISP chooses to only use one for their network, and that one either has problems or shuts them off from access, there's nothing wrong with that, it's their prerogative. Covad can go with someone else.
--
Damn you FCC! |
|
| reply to houuser
said by houuser :
Looks like they might be reconnected. InternetHealthReport.com is showing connectivity of 36%, whereas it has been 0% the last few days.
Yep and it keeps increasing.. 56%.. 70%..
--
Can you say fiber optics? |
|
| reply to tkdslr
Re: Seams to me that Level 3 commited a criminal act.. said by tkdslr: Little known to many is the Clayton Anti-trust act.. It covers anti-competitive actions in general. Note: Monopoly status is not a requirement to invoke the Clayton Anti-trust act. From what I hear.. Level-3 has taken this disconnection issue a step further. (It's one thing to no longer offer transit across a ones network. It's quite a different story to BLOCK access to a group of a competitor's customers all together.) It seams that Level 3 is still advertising some erroneous BGP routes to Covad and then dead ending them. (I.E. Reports of unreachable websites, traffic which would be normally be rerouted through one of the NAP's.) Additionally they're blocking Level 3 customers from reaching Covad customers and vice-a-versa. Both are criminal anti-competitive acts which damage Covad and BOTH companies customers. I.E. Level 3 is committing a criminal act by defrauding it's own customers and blocking their access to Covad based websites. As Level 3 has sold it's customers Internet access, both directions, to the internet as a WHOLE, not just portions of it. If I were Covad, I would present this to a federal judge and slap an injunction on LEVEL 3 pronto. Um, what does Covad have to do with this? |
|
 nixenRockin' the BoxenPremium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA | Re: Seams to me that Level 3 commited a criminal a said by hypercooljak:said by tkdslr: Little known to many is the Clayton Anti-trust act.. It covers anti-competitive actions in general. Note: Monopoly status is not a requirement to invoke the Clayton Anti-trust act. From what I hear.. Level-3 has taken this disconnection issue a step further. (It's one thing to no longer offer transit across a ones network. It's quite a different story to BLOCK access to a group of a competitor's customers all together.) It seams that Level 3 is still advertising some erroneous BGP routes to Covad and then dead ending them. (I.E. Reports of unreachable websites, traffic which would be normally be rerouted through one of the NAP's.) Additionally they're blocking Level 3 customers from reaching Covad customers and vice-a-versa. Both are criminal anti-competitive acts which damage Covad and BOTH companies customers. I.E. Level 3 is committing a criminal act by defrauding it's own customers and blocking their access to Covad based websites. As Level 3 has sold it's customers Internet access, both directions, to the internet as a WHOLE, not just portions of it. If I were Covad, I would present this to a federal judge and slap an injunction on LEVEL 3 pronto. Um, what does Covad have to do with this? They both begin with "Co"?
-tom
--
"Some people have morals, standards and ideals about quality, but I'm an American: I couldn't care less." --Tony Pierce (paraphrased) |
|
tkdslr
join:2004-04-24
Pompano Beach, FL Reviews:
·Speakeasy
1 edit | reply to hypercooljak
Cogent is both a plaintiff and victim of L3 actions.
Cogent's customers are also victims.
Level 3 customers are also victims.
Level 3 is a defendant for violating the Clayton anti-trust act.
My error... Mistook Covad for Cogent |
|
| Are you on crack? No one blackholed anyone. Level3 disconnected the peering sessions. Cogent was not advertising their routes via another transit provider, so Level3 saw no routes. This was all Cogent's fault.
If Covad was having routing problems to Level3, then that's a case of incompetence on their part, not a problem of either Level3 or Cogent. |
|
jchin
join:2005-10-05
10300 | reply to tkdslr
Re: Seams to me that Level 3 commited a criminal act.. Actually you are wrong!
Cogent was advertising their routes elsewhere. It was the customers of Level3 that got really screwed, cause when their replies to Cogent IPs ended up on Level3's network, the packets were simply dropped (making the connection look dead). At one point, Level3 was proxying the web requests to a website saying that Cogent was the cause (which wasn't the truth). Level3 quickly removed that proxy when enough people called Level3 and complained (I know someone who called and complained). |
|
| Re: Seams to me that Level 3 commited a criminal a said by jchin:Actually you are wrong! Cogent was advertising their routes elsewhere. It was the customers of Level3 that got really screwed, cause when their replies to Cogent IPs ended up on Level3's network, the packets were simply dropped (making the connection look dead). At one point, Level3 was proxying the web requests to a website saying that Cogent was the cause (which wasn't the truth). Level3 quickly removed that proxy when enough people called Level3 and complained (I know someone who called and complained). No, that's just wrong. Cogent does not have full transit. They buy selected transit from Verio for ISPs that they've lost the game of chicken with (think AOL). They didn't buy transit via Verio to Level3, so Level3 never saw their routes.
Level3 did not do anything to filter Cogent's routes from other sources. Cogent simply wasn't advertising their routes via any other transit provider with whom they have an agreement to distribute them to AS3356.
Please provide proof of your "proxy" claim. |
|
gVOIPm
join:2005-01-20
Mcdonough, GA | reply to tkdslr
Re: Seams to me that Level 3 commited a criminal act.. »Level 3 Press Release 10/7/2--5 6:11pmEST |
|
