Re: cogent and level3
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 told that L3 and Cogent are working through some peering negotiations and cogent is moving traffic off their L3 peer in anticipation of a depeering (I guess they are trying to avoid the whole France Telecom thing that happend last time). Does anyone have a better clue as to what is going on and where the negotiations stand? Unoffical sources say that Level 3 sent a depeering notice to Cogent a month ago, for a disconnection on either the 15th or the 16th of September. Based on the fact that Cogent is offering 0 commit ports to any Level 3 customers they can find (at 50% of their L3 pricing), it looks like they're preparing to shift as much traffic off as possible, and put the rest on transit. With any luck (if you're a Cogent or L3 customer at any rate) they won't be blackholing each other. Guess we'll find out this week. :) As for the path through Asia, sounds broken, send the traceroute to customer support and tell them to get it fixed. -- Richard A Steenbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
Re: Cogent and Level3 Peering Issues
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 specific information would be great. Thanks Dale
Re: Cogent and Level3 Peering Issues
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 Cogent and Level3. Cogent gives the standard answer when you call support, but some more specific information would be great. Thanks Dale
Re: Cogent and Level3 Peering Issues
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 stopped peering and if somebody has questions they should call AOL to complain .. (with phone# to their NOC provided in the letter - not very nice thing to do it like this in my opinion). Afterwards direct peering to AOL was lost, cogent started sending out all their data though Level3 (AOL upstrem), making them pay for that traffic and because of amount of data the peering links got congested easily - PAIX cogent-level3 peering in bay area for example had 1 sec latency yesterday afternoon. After I spent some time yesterday investigating all that I found that actually cogent is only using former netrail (AS4006) peering links to send data out to that is going to AS1668 and only some of those links. On the other hand most level3 destined data from cogent is sent through PSI links (i.e. 16631 174 3356).. So for me currently I put up filters to route all AS1668 and Level3 data through savvis for routes that look like (16631 4006 3356 ... ) and it works out fine for now. Today I'm going to deal with incoming traffic but the problem I had is that I could not find AOL (AS1668) looking glass, traceroute or some other tool like that. I checked traceroute.org and was very surprised that large network like theirs does not have publicly available looking glass listed. So those of you who peer with them - how do you deal with network troubleshooting when you need to check soemthing from their network side? If you know where their looking glass is - please send me a link! P.S. If somebody is seeing level3-cogent route that is congested I'd also like to know as this is something I have to deal with today as well. Send this traceroute to me privately. On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Dale Levesque wrote: 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 specific information would be great. Thanks Dale
Re: Cogent and Level3 Peering Issues
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, peering to AOL was upgraded to OC48 from OC12 and now for some reason AOL stopped peering and if somebody has questions they should call AOL to complain .. (with phone# to their NOC provided in the letter - not very nice thing to do it like this in my opinion). If nothing else, Cogent could be using their idle 6461 transit, instead of grandstanding by overloading their Level 3 capacity so they can blame AOL. -- Richard A Steenbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
Re: Cogent and Level3 Peering Issues
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 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 stopped peering and if somebody has questions they should call AOL to complain .. (with phone# to their NOC provided in the letter - not very nice thing to do it like this in my opinion). If nothing else, Cogent could be using their idle 6461 transit, instead of grandstanding by overloading their Level 3 capacity so they can blame AOL. is it really idle ? 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? -Basil
Re: Cogent and Level3 Peering Issues
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 deal with it all either - if somebody blames too much somebody else, more then likely they are at fault to considerable degree... On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, 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 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 stopped peering and if somebody has questions they should call AOL to complain .. (with phone# to their NOC provided in the letter - not very nice thing to do it like this in my opinion). If nothing else, Cogent could be using their idle 6461 transit, instead of grandstanding by overloading their Level 3 capacity so they can blame AOL.
Re: Cogent and Level3 Peering Issues
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 not a customer There are no congestion issues between 6461 and 1668 at this time. If someone believes there is a problem please have them contact me off list so I can look into it. I can make no comment on the volume of traffic, having no idea what volume is involved. If you consider the paths that are available for a moment, I think most people can deduce why they are choosing the Level 3 path, and it has nothing to do with performance. -- Leo Bicknell - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - [EMAIL PROTECTED], www.tmbg.org msg07490/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Cogent and Level3 Peering Issues
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, peering to AOL was upgraded to OC48 from OC12 and now for some reason AOL stopped peering and if somebody has questions they should call AOL to complain .. (with phone# to their NOC provided in the letter - not very nice thing to do it like this in my opinion). If nothing else, Cogent could be using their idle 6461 transit, instead of grandstanding by overloading their Level 3 capacity so they can blame AOL. is it really idle ? 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? Because they do not do custom anything. Alex
Re: Cogent and Level3 Peering Issues
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 congestion on the inbound direction. Fix your reverse path. -- Richard A Steenbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
Re: Cogent and Level3 Peering Issues
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 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. If the site is multihomed to any decent Tier1 provider +Cogent; (701 or 2914 or 1239 or 3561 or 1, etc +16631) with or without prepend 16631 or site ASN, a lot of, if not all of the inbound traffic will still be going through one of those better carriers, fortunately or unfortunately. All I really want is to be able to control my inbound from Level3 ;) -Basil
Re: Cogent and Level3 Peering Issues
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 - websites tend to send traffic out, not take traffic in. Alex
Re: Cogent and Level3 Peering Issues
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; outbound is way too easy to control. Cogent has a pile of available inbound - websites tend to send traffic out, not take traffic in. Somewhat true. Yet still if the inbound from one of the major players is really saturated wouldn't that hurt Cogent customers. -Basil
Re: Cogent and Level3 Peering Issues
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 only if you try to send 100% more traffic then link can handle (just 100% traffic does not efect it - have to really push it), this happened on 100Mb and even on Gb interface. On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 [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; outbound is way too easy to control. Cogent has a pile of available inbound - websites tend to send traffic out, not take traffic in. Alex
Re: Cogent and Level3 Peering Issues
[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 full) and I'v seen it happen only if you try to send 100% more traffic then link can handle (just 100% traffic does not efect it - have to really push it), this happened on 100Mb and even on Gb interface. Or could it be that your ACK packets just simply get delayed enough for the traffic to the other direction to suffer somewhat? This is quite common phenomenan in asymmetric links but also exists for symmetric ones. Pete On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 [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; outbound is way too easy to control. Cogent has a pile of available inbound - websites tend to send traffic out, not take traffic in. Alex
Re: Cogent and Level3 Peering Issues
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 - websites tend to send traffic out, not take traffic in. Somewhat true. Yet still if the inbound from one of the major players is really saturated wouldn't that hurt Cogent customers. When you have symmetric links [same up/down] (which basically all links are) the probability of the inbound link from others being saturated for a company that provides mostly transit to webhosters is nill to nothing. Alex
Re: Cogent and Level3 Peering Issues
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 getting jammed as a sideeffect as well. I route aol-destined traffic from my net to provider other then cogent - but how do I tell AOL and L3 (and only them) that best path to me is through somebody else? route-map cogent-ick permit 10 match community-list aggregate-only set as-path prepend iamuglypath iamuglypath iamuglypath route-map cogent-ick deny 20 match community-list deaggregated-routes route-map happy-with-backup permit 10 match community-list deaggregated-routes route-map happy-with-backup deny 20 match community-list aggregate-only Basil is right - the best way to deal with that would be for cogent to provide special community that would allow me to direct cogent to prepend several of their ASN to level3 advertisements. Cogent doesnot do anything custom. Alex
