  ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4
4 edits |  Cogent the bad guy; but they are making demands
P.S> all connections up and running btw Cogent and Level3:
»www.internethealthreport.com/ I guess Level3 gave in to the blackmail.
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page | |
|
 | Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| Re: Cogent the bad guy; but they are making demand I have seen a bunch of folks condeming cogent for supposedly abusing peering. Does anyone have proof of this? Level 3's statement about an inbalance is far form factual since no metrics were provided. Keep this in mind before condeming either company. We don't know anything other than press releases which are dubious to form a informed opinion on. So far all we have is theories and speculations.
--
God Blesshttp://www.emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com-- carpe ductum -- "Grab the tape" | |
|
| |  QumahlinNever Enough TimePremium,MVM
join:2001-10-05
united state | Re: Cogent the bad guy; but they are making demand I suggest doing some reading on Cogent. This is far from the first time this has happened and Cogent is known for it. Thats why you'll find people warning to stay away from Cogents low/cheap prices for fast connections. Cogent is maintaining these cheap fast speeds by screwing over their peers.
Cogent needs to get their act together. | |
|
| | |  en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: Cogent the bad guy; but they are making demand I've heard that one before too (about Cogent) from a former co-worker that worked for a backbone provider.. | |
|
| | Reviews:
·Comcast
| said by hescominsoon:I have seen a bunch of folks condeming cogent for supposedly abusing peering. Does anyone have proof of this? Level 3's statement about an inbalance is far form factual since no metrics were provided. Keep this in mind before condeming either company. We don't know anything other than press releases which are dubious to form a informed opinion on. So far all we have is theories and speculations. I have worked in 4 pops in the northeast that cogent has a presence in. The general traffic is usually 7 to 1 in these pops, they are not holding their own. They are abusing the agreements.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" | |
|
| jchin
join:2005-10-05
10300 | Re: Cogent the bad guy; but they are making demands "Their peers" can easily "load" up the BGP path weights to cause Cogent to route elsewhere. Turning it off and hurting the Internet in general is not the way to do things. Too much traffic coming it, throttle it. They can do that. At least traffic will flow, just a lot slower. They have the ability to control that; and I think they should. Maybe they are just too lazy to really keep an eye on their own borders. | |
|
| | jnxrox
join:2005-10-07
Las Vegas, NV | Re: Cogent the bad guy; but they are making demands said by jchin:"Their peers" can easily "load" up the BGP path weights to cause Cogent to route elsewhere. Turning it off and hurting the Internet in general is not the way to do things. Too much traffic coming it, throttle it. They can do that. At least traffic will flow, just a lot slower. They have the ability to control that; and I think they should. Maybe they are just too lazy to really keep an eye on their own borders. This is not the way it works. The peering contracts are written to prohibit such traffic engineering. Such traffic manipulation is common from customer to transit provider but rare in peering between carriers. The only thing you can do is ask the peer to re-negotiate or do things like take MEDS so that they switch from hot potato to cold potato routing back to you. When these things cannot be negotiated, the terms end or one party chooses to terminate and peering may discontinue. It has happened before and it's not the last time. | |
|
| | Nevermind! CEO tries to place Anus on Level3
Make your customers suffer just to make a stupid point! | |
|
| | | Re: Nevermind! A classic misspelling! | |
|
| |  John GaltForward, MarchPremium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
kudos:2 | Re: Nevermind! Probably the spellchecker...!
--
A is A | |
|
|  juiceleePremium
join:2000-12-04
Hacienda Heights, CA | You're right. They are shoveling shit in their direction.  | |
|
 CheesePremium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
kudos:1
1 edit | Um One of the articles says cogent shut off level3. Which is it?
"Mr. Schaeffer went on to say, "In fact, Cogent is willing to offer Level
3 free Internet service across our network to help alleviate their financial
situation while also discussing appropriate traffic ratios. Cogent feels
allegations of inappropriate traffic ratios have been incorrectly articulated
by Level 3. In fact, it is Level 3 who requested that Cogent send more
traffic across their network since Level 3 charges by the bit, and increased
traffic flow helps them financially."
Edit : NM, read that wrong. | |
|
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 | Do you mean Cogent? | |
|
| | | Looks like they might be reconnected. InternetHealthReport.com is showing connectivity of 36%, whereas it has been 0% the last few days. | |
|
| | | | Re: Seams to me a Level 3 commited a crminal act.. 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? | |
|
| mishaqPremium
join:2004-01-24
Richardson, TX | 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! | |
|
| | | 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 | 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 | |
|
| | | | | Re: Seams to me that Level 3 commited a criminal a 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 | 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. | |
|
| |
| | They reconnected! | |
|
|  imtim83Hate the people from there. Stop copyingPremium
join:2001-06-03
Kenner, LA
1 edit |  Re: They reconnected!
| |
|
| |
1 edit | Re: They reconnected! removed =/ | |
|
 SkellBasherYes Sorto, I'll take my Prozac
join:2000-10-22
Niagara Falls, NY | Fixed... I can confirm this is fixed. Just checked all my dial ins on the Cogent network, and Level3 hosted stuff is reachable.
Level3 is also advertising Cogent route in their BGP annc's again, they weren't this morning.
--
Help the victims of Katrinahttp://redcross.org/ | |
|
|
| | | Re: lookin' good! Level3 on Cogent Have worked a deal out. They are Peering with each other
cogent-level3-oc48.Washington1.Level3.net (4.68.127.10)
cogent-level3-ge.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.68.111.42)
cogent-level3-ge.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.68.111.46)
cogent-level3-oc48.SanJose1.Level3.net (4.68.127.18)
cogent-level3-oc48.Dallas1.Level3.net (4.68.127.14)
cogent-level3-oc48.SanJose1.Level3.net (4.68.127.18)
cogent-level3-oc48.SanJose1.Level3.net (4.68.127.202)
cogent-Chicago 4.68.127.130 | |
|
| | |
Reviews:
·Comcast
| Damn people! Level 3 should have put the screw to them and let their customers complain. I would have let cogent slice their own throats.
It distresses me to see this crap happen and no one did anything for any decent amount of time to help keep this from happening again.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" | |
|
| | | Re: Damn people! No one's ever going to (publicly) find out what really happened. I would not be surprised if Cogent's really paying Level3 for limited transit now with Cogent's CEO trying to spin this as Level3 caving. If there was a deal, I'm sure there was an NDA signed by all parties. | |
|
| | Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Damn people! Well now it makes l3 look bad.
That is the problem with companies now , none of them want the truth to come out. None of them are willing to stand up. Damn spineless ceo's , worry about just their bonuses and not the fact the companies stock is falling faster then a skydiver.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" | |
|
| | | | | Re: Damn people! Eh, in the end, people are still going to continue to buy Level3 for performance reasons. I personally suspect that Cogent won the battle, but lost the war. That is, they won the PR battle, but ended up paying for the peering which will hurt them in the long run. | |
|
jchin
join:2005-10-05
10300 |  Level3 / Cogent ... about time!
Cogent mostly have customers who run servers and hosts. Level3 provides a lot of resellers with Internet access via dialup, DSL and even T1s. If Cogent should pay Level3 for sending content traffic to Level3 customers, then Level3 should pay Cogent for dealing with the massive amounts of SPAM that comes from e-mail blasts which originate from these inexpensive "end-user" connections that ultimately target the Cogent servers (mainly email servers).
10 of this or 10 of that. They should just sit down and hash out a new peering agreement. Not hold a portion of the Internet community as hostage or make a portion of the Internet collateral damage.
Just my 2-cents. | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
|
|
|
