rantou
join:2002-06-04
Richardson, TX | Those unapologetic SOBs... I don't really know anymore if I am pro =-network-neutrality or against it, but this is definitely a game that shouldn't have been played on both of these providers' parts. It was really an act of being childish. The network that I maintain has links from multiple providers (Cogent being one of them, Sprint not.) and for some reason when everything took a dive all of our sprint/nextel data services no longer would connect to our servers, as well as all of our clients too. This was really frustrating, and with absolutely no warning or anything. Now why didn't Sprint routes hop on to one of the other providers that we are peered with that they are as well? That's another question that I don't think I can answer.
Maybe Cogent had a blackhole route created then for all AS1239 traffic? Of course then it would be a single hop from us and again would cause problems as our other links (Internap which puts us 2 hops from the Internet, and as well Xeex which puts us 2 hops from the Internet) would have more hops to get to Sprint.
I think it was a very unthoughtful thing for them to do. They could have at least graciously removed their peering agreements to not disrupt Internet traffic nearly as much as they did. |
|
 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
| said by rantou:Maybe Cogent had a blackhole route created then for all AS1239 traffic? No. Cogent doesn't get AS1239 routes unless they peer directly with AS1239, or pay an intermediate network for access to AS1239 routes. (paying for transit leaks routes in both directions)
Cogent could have paid NTT/Verio for transit access to AS1239 and just prepended the routes in each direction so the NTT path wouldn't be used unless the Sprint direct connections dropped. They instead chose to play chicken with an established Tier1 carrier; you can't sell bandwidth at $4/megabit without cutting several corners. |
|
|
|
