On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 01:41:32PM -0400, Joseph Nuara wrote:
Does anyone know what the story is with Cogent and L3? I noticed that my
Cogent site (IN NY) is using a path to one of my providers (IN NJ) via
asia as opposed to the local and preferred L3 peer. After several days I
was finally
Possibly a result of this:
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=threadid=96985
Kevin
Anyone happen to have more information on the problems that have been
happening with the peering between Cogent and Level3. Cogent gives the
standard answer when you call support, but some more
Might have to do with
http://isp-lists.isp-planet.com/isp-bandwidth/0212/msg00978.html
(AOL vs Cogent Peering issue)
---Mike
At 09:51 AM 18/12/2002 -0500, Dale Levesque wrote:
Anyone happen to have more information on the problems that have been
happening with the peering between
AOL (AS1668) stopped peering with cogent yesterday for reasons they did
not disclose publicly. Cogent sends same letter to all customers who
asked for what is going on and in the letter they say that two weeks
ago, peering to AOL was upgraded to OC48 from OC12 and now for some
reason AOL
On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 08:44:55AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
AOL (AS1668) stopped peering with cogent yesterday for reasons they did
not disclose publicly. Cogent sends same letter to all customers who
asked for what is going on and in the letter they say that two weeks
ago,
On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 01:12:02PM -0500, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 08:44:55AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
AOL (AS1668) stopped peering with cogent yesterday for reasons they did
not disclose publicly. Cogent sends same letter to all customers who
I pointed that out on another list too but somebody else responded that
abovenet to aol connection is congested as it is and more then likely
would not have been able to take all the extra traffic. I'm not a customer
of MFN/abovenet so I really do not know but I did not like it how cogent
In a message written on Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 10:02:13AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I pointed that out on another list too but somebody else responded that
abovenet to aol connection is congested as it is and more then likely
would not have been able to take all the extra traffic. I'm
On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 08:44:55AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
AOL (AS1668) stopped peering with cogent yesterday for reasons they did
not disclose publicly. Cogent sends same letter to all customers who
asked for what is going on and in the letter they say that two weeks
On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 12:24:31PM -0600, Basil Kruglov wrote:
Why wouldn't Cogent create a community string to provide its multihomed
customers with prepend 16631 (or customer asn) to Level3 peering sessions
to control inbounds better?
Me thinks Cogent doesn't have a problem with
On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 02:36:04PM -0500, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
Why wouldn't Cogent create a community string to provide its multihomed
customers with prepend 16631 (or customer asn) to Level3 peering sessions
to control inbounds better?
Me thinks Cogent doesn't have a problem
Me thinks Cogent doesn't have a problem with congestion on the inbound
direction. Fix your reverse path.
Customers of Cogent should be/are more concerned about congestion on the
inbounds at Level3 - Cogent; outbound is way too easy to control.
Cogent has a pile of available inbound -
On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 03:23:04PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Me thinks Cogent doesn't have a problem with congestion on the inbound
direction. Fix your reverse path.
Customers of Cogent should be/are more concerned about congestion on the
inbounds at Level3 - Cogent;
Thing is if your connection is completely full one way, it'll effect
traffic the other way too. It should not be happening with syncronyous
connections, but practical observation is that it does! I suspect router
hardware is to blame (possibly packet cache is way full) and I'v seen
it happen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thing is if your connection is completely full one way, it'll effect
traffic the other way too. It should not be happening with syncronyous
connections, but practical observation is that it does! I suspect router
hardware is to blame (possibly packet cache is way
Me thinks Cogent doesn't have a problem with congestion on the inbound
direction. Fix your reverse path.
Customers of Cogent should be/are more concerned about congestion on the
inbounds at Level3 - Cogent; outbound is way too easy to control.
Cogent has a pile of
Of course, your right about what needs to be fixed! But situation with
cogent is such that I do not have that option. Their peering link with
level3 is congested because of all the traffic going to AOL and some of
traffic destined to me is going through same link the other way and
17 matches
Mail list logo
