Why do some companies like Cogent get depeered relatively often and companies like Teleglobe don't even get talked about and operate in silence free from depeering?
That's funny. One of the first networks to de-peer Cogent was Teleglobe. They re-peered after a bit.
The next obvious question is: When Sprint, Telia & L3 de-peering Cogent, it causes a lot of news in the press & noise on NANOG, so why didn't you know Teleglobe depeered Cogent? Is this because Teleglobe runs a better network than Sprint? Well, that's hard to say, but please note that when Teleglobe depeered Cogent, they were disconnected just as Sprint & Cogent are disconnected now. Doesn't matter how 'good' a network you run, if packets won't go there, you can't get there.
I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out the rest.
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Imagine the lawsuits and government regulation had that occurred.
Real time look at the situation:
*>i4.23.112.0/24 66.216.0.20 0 100 0 1239 174 21889
i
* i 66.216.0.1 0 100 0 1239 174 21889
i
* i 66.186.193.16 0 100 0 1239 174 21889
i
* i 66.186.193.17 0 100 0 1239 174 21889
i
*>i4.23.113.0/24 66.216.0.20 0 100 0 1239 174 21889
i
* i 66.216.0.1 0 100 0 1239 174 21889
i
* i 66.186.193.16 0 100 0 1239 174 21889
i
* i 66.186.193.17 0 100 0 1239 174 21889
i
Etc.
Problem resolved?
Randy
Randy Epstein wrote:
<snip>
Problem resolved?
From a single-homed Cogent site, I can get to sprint.net and fcc.gov, both
of which were unavailable after the de-peering.
Joe Johnson
Senior Systems Engineer
InnerWorkings, Inc.
Managed Print & Promotional Solutions
600 West Chicago Avenue, Suite 850
Chicago, IL 60654
Phone: 312.676.6873
Fax: 312.604.5487
joe.johnson@inwk.com
www.inwk.com
NASDAQ: INWK
> Problem resolved?
Check out the <TITLE> of the document. Me thinks it was a
rush job to post up the page and a bit of cut/paste was done. 
Tuc
Seeing as Cogent is going to try tooth and nail to keep their new found Tier
1 status (and not pay anyone for transit), I would think this would bode
worse for Sprint, since most of their transit customers could migrate to
Cogent (saving $$$ and not having to face future depeerings). Just my $0.02.
-brandon
Yes, I've read it. They need to fix their <TITLE>.
So while Cogent was depeered by Sprint, we contacted the CEO of Cogent on
Friday to try and arrange at least a temporary peering arrangement so that
bits flowed between our networks while they battled this situation out with
Sprint. Cogent's response? Buy transit from them.
I presume one of Sprint's dissatisfactions during the trial with Cogent were
ratios. My network happens to have a very high ratio of eyeballs (inbound
traffic) vs outbound traffic. One would believe that Cogent would like to
offload their outbound traffic to networks other than their Tier-1 peers, to
at least give them an upper hand when negotiating peering arrangements with
these networks.
It's funny how Cogent depeers networks whenever they want, but the second
another network depeers them, they cry foul.
Randy
Unless they need to reach other networks single homed from Sprint...
Simon
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.
As far as fighting "tooth and nail", that much seems abundantly clear
considering that they are actually 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.
Brandon Galbraith wrote:
Brandon Galbraith wrote:
[ snip ]
I guess, if you like being affected by Cogent's peering spats on a recurring
basis. Are you forgetting this is not the first time?
But according to Sprint, this isn't a peering spat. This is a customer
who didn't pay their bill.
Probably useful to keep that in perspective.
-M<
Martin Hannigan wrote:
Brandon Galbraith wrote:
[ snip ]
I guess, if you like being affected by Cogent's peering spats on a recurring
basis. Are you forgetting this is not the first time?But according to Sprint, this isn't a peering spat. This is a customer
who didn't pay their bill.Probably useful to keep that in perspective.
Yeah, I know, but it was a trial arrangement which it turns out Cogent didn't meet requirements for, then didn't want to pony up the cash and pretended it was still settlement free peering. And I am inclined to believe Sprint's side of the story because Cogent likes to do this every so often.
It just amazes me how some people seem to think this is the first time Cogent has done this. It's like they want the horrid operational impact it will have, cry that big bad provider X disconnected them, and people will come to their defense.
~Seth
It just amazes me how some people seem to think this is the first time
Cogent has done this. It's like they want the horrid operational impact
it will have, cry that big bad provider X disconnected them, and people
will come to their defense.
Everyone loves an underdog story.
-Justin
That would be none.
Aren't you in one of the "1300 on-net locations" with Cogent? Doesn't that give you a free FE?
Patrick,
Aren't you in one of the "1300 on-net locations" with Cogent? Doesn't
that give you a free FE?
Clearly you are joking here, but no, wasn't even offered the free FastE! 
Randy