espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
 ·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
 ·Comcast
 ·Embarq
| reply to WizBomber
Re: Thank god
said by WizBomber  :If Sprint is going to disconnect this, they need to have backup routes created in their network. Stupid Sprint NOC. Did you even read the update? Sprint gave Cogent 30 days notice that they would be disconnected, and links were shutdown over the entire month of October.
The events of October 30th related only to disconnection of the final two interconnects (of 10 original interconnections) between Sprint and Cogent. In addition to notifying Cogent 30 days in advance of our intent to disconnect, Sprint's first disconnect action took place on October 7th, 2008. Between October 7th and October 30th, Sprint disconnected one or two ports each week with Cogent's full awareness. During this period, Cogent failed to take any action in support of its own customers' ongoing Internet reachability even though such actions were fully under its control. From Sprint's perspective this isn't a peering dispute, this is a customer that didn't pay their bill.
It's good to be pissed off about this, but at least blame the right company. |
|
fcisler
Premium
join:2004-06-14
Riverhead, NY
| This seems to be a persistent issue with Cogent.
They pull the "Company X does not want to deal with Cogent because they undercut their business model" - when in reality Cogent was just leeching off of Sprint. This is if you believe Sprint's "update" (which I would tend to believe over Cogent).
When this was a dispute with Level 3 - Level 3 accused Cogent of disproportionate usage of a SFI. Cogent came back and said "Hey - You asked us to send more traffic!". I don't know who is crying wolf there, but again I'd levy my bet against Cogent. |
|
powerspec88
Premium
join:2007-03-11
Harrisonville, MO | reply to espaeth
But they should of had like a back up plan or something so we can still connect to cogent by going through level3, at&t, ntt, etc. I don't care if it add's hops along the way, just as long as i can still reach these sites. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| said by powerspec88 :But they should of had like a back up plan or something so we can still connect to cogent by going through level3, at&t, ntt, etc. I don't care if it add's hops along the way, just as long as i can still reach these sites. The transit network in between needs to be paid for providing that service and taking on the traffic. Cogent is already not paying Sprint, so you're not going to find a lot of carriers jumping at the opportunity to serve this role only to be stiffed on the bill as well.
|
|
AVonGauss
Premium,MVM
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL
1 edit | reply to espaeth
In the case of a Sprint EVDO broadband customer attempting to connect to a VPN (presumably on a Cogent network), shouldn't the user still have been able to connect to the VPN server using an alternate path? I could be wrong, but it just sounds like to me there is a bit more to the story than just disconnecting a series of interlinks. I just have a hard time believing Sprint and Cogent don't have at least one other peering networking in common even if it takes a couple of layers to find.
Either way, it is just silly in my opinion that this went on for so long - and that is something which both companies can be credited with. |
|
cybermud
join:2000-08-25
Chicago, IL
| reply to powerspec88
And thats why Cogent feels they shouldn't have to pay Sprint. Enough Sprint customers need to be able to get to Cogent. And Sprint is not going to pay Level3 or AT&T or anyone else for transit to Cogent as it would weaken their negotiating power.
--
www.donwest.org - Get in on it, Gang! |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| said by cybermud :And Sprint is not going to pay Level3 or AT&T or anyone else for transit to Cogent as it would weaken their negotiating power. Sprint is a Tier1 provider based on agreements and binding legal contracts with the other carriers to establish settlement free peering. Cogent is trying to claim to be a tier1 carrier simply by not paying for transit, even though they don't have contracts in place to stipulate such. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
1 edit | reply to AVonGauss
said by AVonGauss :In the case of a Sprint EVDO broadband customer attempting to connect to a VPN (presumably on a Cogent network), shouldn't the user still have been able to connect to the VPN server using an alternate path? In settlement-based peering, sure.
said by AVonGauss :I could be wrong, but it just sounds like to me there is a bit more to the story than just disconnecting a series of interlinks. I just have a hard time believing Sprint and Cogent don't have at least one other peering networking in common even if it takes a couple of layers to find. Settlement free peering is about the exchange of traffic from the direct customers of Carrier A and Carrier B. Sprint advertises their routes out to the likes of ATT, Level(3), GlobalCrossing, etc. so that the customers of each network can communicate. The advertisements go no further than the direct interconnection. When Sprint advertises to ATT and Verizon, the Sprint routes are not then further exchanged between ATT and Verizon.
Verizon won't pass traffic so the paying customers of Sprint can talk to the paying customers of ATT without getting some compensation for their trouble.
said by AVonGauss :Either way, it is just silly in my opinion that this went on for so long - and that is something which both companies can be credited with. Cogent has gotten into peering spats with Teleglobe, Level(3), Telia, and now Sprint. In the carrier world they're the bother with the gambling addiction that the rest of the family needs to keep bailing out, with occasional bouts of tough love.
That people still believe Cogent is the victim here is unreal. |
|
AVonGauss
Premium,MVM
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL
2 edits | I wasn't trying to imply that Cogent is the victim, I believe the Sprint PCS customers who had trouble connecting to sites are the victims, if anybody. I don't however feel "bad" for Sprint the corporation, from their own update in September 2007 they decided they did not want to enter in to a settlement free arrangement with Cogent. They describe it as Cogent did not disconnect from them, nor did they pay their bill - okay, but we wait a year to do it from the Sprint end? Of course not, based on other blog entries there is a lot more background than the statement published by Sprint or Cogent. |
|
raye
Premium
join:2000-08-14
Orange, CA
| Some perspective (posted on previous blog entry last week)
Cogent has never been a Tier 1, they have only been "transit free". Being transit free is not a difficult accomplishment, it just means that you don't announce or receive routes via a relationship which is intended to be heard by the entire Internet. You could easily go out and buy transit from each of the existing transit free networks, tag your routes with communities to only announce to customers, and become a "transit free" network with global reachability overnight. Of course, this carries with it the risk of breaking global Internet connectivity in the event of a depeering. It is well known that Cogent pays for out-of-ratio traffic with Level3 and Telia, and clearly Sprint says that they have no actual peering agreement. This doesn't have the making of a real tier 1 network.
Cogent has been stealing service from Sprint (and have been for over a year) in order to maintain their status. They used a "trial"
peering session to weasel their way into a direct connection with Sprint, and once they got it they intentionally changed their announcements so that if Sprint disconnected them it would cause unreachability.
It seems abundantly clear that this situation was created entirely by Cogent, and that they are intentionally harming their customers and the customers of Sprint in an effort to extort a settlement free relationship.
This is despicable behavior, if not outright criminal activity considering the theft of service they are committing, and it is amazing that Sprint cared enough about Internet connectivity to allow it to continue for so long, and to restore connectivity temporarily.
If any of us stopped paying for our Internet service, and set up routing so that as soon as our provider turned us off we would be reachable to them and their customers complained, then demanded that they give us free service in order to restore connectivity, we would be laughed at. That is what Cogent has done here, and just because they've done it on a large scale doesn't make it right. This specific issue will be solved in a real court and not the court of public opinion, but we should all do our parts to recognize the blatant lies Cogent has told, and to make it clear that we will not accept that kind of behavior. The last thing the Internet needs is more misguided regulation because someone actually believed Cogent's lies. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| reply to AVonGauss
Re: Thank god
I don't feel bad for Sprint either, but I do think that they probably let this drag out as long as they have because they know how disruptive depeering can be.
Most insiders thought SFI wasn't possible, or was failure imminent between Sprint and Cogent from the outset:
»web.archive.org/web/200702060555···er.shtml
I'm sure Cogent has been promising for several months that their ratios would change, but given their history and their target customer market that is unlikely to ever be different for them. |
|
AVonGauss
Premium,MVM
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL
1 edit | reply to raye
Re: Some perspective (posted on previous blog entry last week)
So you are saying if a Sprint PCS customer does not pay their bill Sprint will wait a year until they take action?
Again, this is not an attempt to defend Cogent, but I also don't for a second believe the party line that Sprint is trying to sing either. If they would have disconnected Cogento back in December of 2007, that would be an entirely different matter. |
|
raye
Premium
join:2000-08-14
Orange, CA
| they began dis-connecting them one port at a time over the course of serveral weeks. Sprint told Cogent they were going to do this, so Cogent should not be surprised that they did.
I multi-home with both Sprint and Cogent. Cogent is my fast and cheap provider. Sprint is my fast and reliable provider. for simple web stuff cogent works great but when I absolutely positively need uptime and bandwidth (i.e. my VPNs, mail servers, DNS) I use sprint.
Nothing wrong with cogent trying to be the upstart with lowest prices. But pay your bills. |
|
SLD
Premium
join:2002-04-17 | reply to fcisler
Re: Thank god
I'd bet against Sprint. Cogent is the underdog here... my experience is the larger the company, the bigger the lies. |
|
dmadole
join:2003-12-30
New London, CT
| reply to cybermud
Cybermud, you are the only one here I see who gets it.
Sprint is a dinosaur and they were too hung up in their old equal-traffic mentality. The idea that the peering was unfair because Cogent sent them more traffic than they sent Cogent was silly. Cogent doesn't just decide to randomly send them traffic, they send it because subscribers on the Sprint side request content. It's Sprint's customers that create traffic from Cogent.
I think Sprint screwed up on this, because they apparently forgot that they have an awful lot of customers, including all Sprint wireless subscribers, some federal agencies, and some big companies like Pfizer, who are single-homed to them and were probably hurt more than Cogent customers were.
I can almost imagine the internal discussions at Sprint between the Sprint Wireless division and the Sprint Internet division. I bet the wireless side was not too happy. Competitive market like that does not need to be upsetting it's customers that way.
So forget about traffic; who actually get the most benefit from the peering arrangement? I think it just might be Sprint, or maybe it's equal. And I think that's what Cogent has been saying all along.
Sprint tried to bully Cogent around, and Cogent called their bluff. As a Cogent customer, I am a little surprised how little this affected me. Sprint is not the force they seem to think they are. |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | dmadole.. you do not get it at all. EPIC FAIL. |
|
skuv
@rr.com
| reply to espaeth
Except that it is NOT transit that Cogent was getting from Sprint. Cogent doesn't get transit from anyone, paid or not.
Transit means you are transiting one network to get to the other. The Sprint connection for Cogent was to only get to Sprint and its single-homed customers.
If Cogent had transit, there would have been no issue with getting between Sprint and Cogent, because they would have transited another network to get there. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| Prior to the trial of SFI between Cogent and Sprint, Cogent was paying NTT/Verio for transit to get to Sprintlink prefixes.
Once Cogent entered into the SFI trial with Sprint, they ended their agreement with NTT. The issue is that the trial failed to produce traffic levels that BOTH PARTIES agreed to when they signed the contract.
Now it's just up to Cogent to man up and pay for peering, or seek transit through someone else. |
|
dmadole
join:2003-12-30
New London, CT | reply to brad
Ooh, witty response. Wish I had thought of first. You really made your case. |
|
