 koitsuPremium,MVM
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
kudos:14
1 edit | None of this should really matter. You see, the problem at hand isn't petty disputes like what's been documented. Those happen all the time with peering/transport companies (really!).
The problem is (explained in layman's terms to keep it simple) that both sides did not configure their equipment to "fail over" to an alternate peer/provider in the case any of the Sprint/Cogent links went down. This may have been done intentionally (based on the contract), or maybe by accident (just because they're big companies doesn't mean they're immune to idiocy).
Regardless, said links were considered "exclusive", in the sense that if they went down, neither would route packets through alternate providers to reach their destination.
That there, folks, is the core of the problem.
--
Making life hard for others since 1977.
I speak for myself and not my employer/affiliates of my employer. |
|
|
|
 DaSneaky1Done wall to block them allPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou
 ·Charter
| Do you really think that Sprint or Cogent didn't "properly configure their equipment" that caused this? LOL, really, do you really think that they didn't know how to fail-over to alternate providers and that caused the outage?
If anything, this really goes to show how many true Tier II (and lower) providers depend on Sprint and Cogent for their transit. If they couldn't route around those two depeering from each other, then that's the problem.
--
:: my trivial ramblings :: |
|
jmr50
join:2000-05-14
New York, NY | reply to koitsu
Nope, you're wrong. That's not how settlement-free interconnect works -- Cogent doesn't have a "default" or "last resort" route to send traffic through. It has to send Sprint traffic to Sprint, or starting paying someone for transit (which is what they have done in a number of cases where they were de-peered in the past with Level3, Telia, ATDN, France Telecom, etc). If they just started sending all their Sprint traffic to Level3, they'd be violating their SFI agreement with Level3 who would then be able to de-peer them. |
|
| reply to koitsu
Re: None of this should really matter. I thought that when Cogent "de-peers" someone who was their peer they generally blackhole the traffic on their end?
Plus, given that other interlinks are ususally balanced, sudden surge of traffic intended to a peer can screw that up too (so Level 3 or whoever would start complaining at Cogent that their traffic became disproportionate etc etc)
Frankly I see how Sprint would want to squeeze out money, and I hope Cogent will win every one of the peering wars  Because if it wasn't for Cogent, the prices would be even higher. Sure, you can hiccups. But I think it's worth it. And those who complain can always move to another provider, that is 5% more stable at 10 times the cost 
--
Странные новости почти каждый день |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | reply to jmr50
Re: Nope, you're wrong. So who is Cogent's last resort?
»fixedorbit.com/AS/0/AS174.htm
This can't possibly be every IP in the world. |
|
