Cogent transition or prep work this morning? AS 2914 NTT?
Anyone else seeing similar changes abroad?
CORE INFRASTRUCTURE AFFECTING ALERT *
--
BGP Status Change Sequence No: 1225957222
(note: i don't think sprint or cogent is being evil in this situation.)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Has anyone heard of a backup route? With a longer path so it is never
used unless there is a real emergency? Why was there no backup route
available to carry the Sprint - Cogent traffic? Because
what you're calling a political failure could be what others
call a rate war.
I only used the term political failure because it was
the best match of the two options given. But you are
right that it is necessary to let go of those terms
and maybe, define your own, if you want to get to a
deep
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 10:52 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity facts
what you're calling a political failure could be what others
call a rate war.
I didn't really
On Wed, 5 Nov 2008, Church, Charles wrote:
I didn't really care about this, but now I'm curious. Since their
peering was a 'trial', I'm assuming it hasn't always been there. Prior
to Sprint and Cogent peering directly with each other, how did they
communicate? Why was that functionality
2. The Internet cannot route around de-peering
I know everyone believes the Internet routes around failures. While
occasionally true, it does not hold in this case. To route around the
failure would require transit. See item #1.
The internet routes around technical failures, not political
On Nov 4, 2008, at 9:49 AM, David Freedman wrote:
2. The Internet cannot route around de-peering
I know everyone believes the Internet routes around failures.
While
occasionally true, it does not hold in this case. To route
around the
failure would require transit. See item #1.
The
On Nov 4, 2008, at 11:02 AM, David Schwartz wrote:
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Nov 4, 2008, at 9:49 AM, David Freedman wrote:
2. The Internet cannot route around de-peering
I know everyone believes the Internet routes around failures.
While
occasionally true, it does not hold in this case.
could say the current situation is a political success.
--
TTFN,
patrick
-Original Message-
From: Patrick W. Gilmore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 8:10 AM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity facts
On Nov 4, 2008, at 11:02 AM, David
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tomas L. Byrnes) [Tue 04 Nov 2008, 17:51 CET]:
The concept of Transit Free is a political failure, not a technical
one.
Yeah, networks should be free! And Cogent, if they don't get access to
Sprint directly, should just set a default route over some public IX
where
The concept of Transit Free is a political failure, not a
technical
one.
We disagree.
Perhaps some examples are needed? If you drive in a screw with
a big hammer, the end result is not pleasing. For one, a screw will
not have the holding power of a nail. For another, the screw and
the
in the
original design.
-Original Message-
From: Patrick W. Gilmore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 8:10 AM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity facts
On Nov 4, 2008, at 11:02 AM, David Schwartz wrote:
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Nov 4
On Tuesday 04 November 2008 11:55:01 Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Nov 4, 2008, at 11:51 AM, Tomas L. Byrnes wrote:
The concept of Transit Free is a political failure, not a technical
one.
We disagree.
[snip]
So I guess you could say the current situation is a political success.
I would
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Nov 4, 2008, at 9:49 AM, David Freedman wrote:
2. The Internet cannot route around de-peering
I know everyone believes the Internet routes around failures.
While
occasionally true, it does not hold in this case. To route
around the
failure would
* Patrick W. Gilmore:
1. Neither Sprint nor Cogent have transit
Both Sprint Cogent are transit-free networks. (Notice how I
carefully avoided saying tier one?) Whether one or both _should_
have transit is not a fact, and therefore outside the scope of this e-
mail, but that neither have
Put another way, since _every_ network does this, if you do
not want to buy from 'such networks', you cannot buy transit.
Let's put it another 'nother way.
Would an end user get better connectivity by buying from a
reseller of transit? In other words, buying transit from
a network which also
Quite frankly, if any potential transit provider tried to make
noises about
being able to *guarantee* full connectivity, I'd show him the door.
Let's not make the perfect the enemy of the good. All that's required is
that they promise to make a good faith effort to interconnect with anyone
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
4. There is a reason behind ratios which has nothing to do with telco
sender-pays
There is an alleged reason.
Hot potato routing + very poor ratios puts much more of the cost on
the receiving network. This is a valid, logical, and costly concern
for receiving
In a message written on Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 01:26:14AM -0500, Patrick W.
Gilmore wrote:
Having skimmed the Sprint / Cogent threads, I saw multiple errors and
lots of really bad guesses. Instead of replying individually, I
thought I would sum up a few facts so everyone was on the same
David Schwartz wrote:
Your customers pay you to carry their traffic across your network between them
and the next network in the line. There is no reason anyone else should
compensate you for doing this.
What it all comes down to is that the majority of eyeballs are on
residential
David Schwartz wrote:
The ratio argument is nonsense. If your customers want to receive mostly,
and receiving is expensive, they should pay you more to cover your higher
costs in receiving traffic. If my customers mostly want to send, and sending
is cheap, then I should pay less, since I want
On Nov 3, 2008, at 10:03 AM, David Schwartz wrote:
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
4. There is a reason behind ratios which has nothing to do with telco
sender-pays
There is an alleged reason.
Peering rations were first 'big news' when BBN wanted to de-peer
Above.Net, Global Center, and Exodus
* Stephen Sprunk
What it all comes down to is that the majority of eyeballs are on
residential connections that are relatively expensive to provide
but for which are sold at a relatively low price (often 1/10th as
much per megabit of capacity). Those eyeball ISPs cannot or will not
charge
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 3:35 AM, Paul Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 1:26 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. Neither Sprint nor Cogent have transit
Both Sprint Cogent are transit-free networks. (Notice how I carefully
avoided saying tier one?)
How do
On Nov 3, 2008, at 10:41 AM, Tore Anderson wrote:
Another point worth mentioning is that the traffic is going to flow
between those two ISPs _anyway_.
I believe the events of 2-3 days ago disproves your assertion.
Therefore, in many cases the only
ones to profit from them not reaching a
In a message written on Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 10:40:46AM -0500, Patrick W.
Gilmore wrote:
The FACT is that a point-source sending traffic to distributed
receivers combined with hot-potato routing puts more of the cost on
the receiver. That fact is not in dispute, apparently even you agree.
* Patrick W. Gilmore
On Nov 3, 2008, at 10:41 AM, Tore Anderson wrote:
Another point worth mentioning is that the traffic is going to flow
between those two ISPs _anyway_.
I believe the events of 2-3 days ago disproves your assertion.
Having partitioned transit-free networks is going to
Barrett Lyon wrote:
Incase this has not hit the list yet:
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/153194/sprint_reconnects_cogent_but_differences_are_unresolved.html
Sprint Reconnects Cogent, but Differences Are Unresolved
Mikael Ricknäs, IDG News Service
Monday, November 03, 2008
On Nov 3, 2008, at 2:35 AM, Paul Wall wrote:
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 1:26 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. Neither Sprint nor Cogent have transit
Both Sprint Cogent are transit-free networks. (Notice how I
carefully
avoided saying tier one?)
How do you explain Cogent's
Sorry for my possible ignorance, but could you explain me what are you
calling transit-free?
I mean, the ISP I work for, has contract for several STM-4 links with
Sprint (at least for 8 years now), and for sure they do have transit, at
least for us (as we publish our customers ASs to them and they
* Valdis Kletnieks:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 10:26:59 +0100, Florian Weimer said:
* Patrick W. Gilmore:
3. Standard transit contracts do not guarantee full connectivity
If this were true, why would end users (or, more generally, not
significantly multi-homed networks) buy transit from such
Does Akamai have peering arrangements with Cogent directly?
Akamai are self declared peering sluts. So, yes, they have direct
peering arrangements with Cogent.
Hrm, so after I posted this, I looked a bit deeper into it and found:
3 vl3493.mpd03.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.5.226)
On Nov 3, 2008, at 4:26 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Patrick W. Gilmore:
1. Neither Sprint nor Cogent have transit
Both Sprint Cogent are transit-free networks. (Notice how I
carefully avoided saying tier one?) Whether one or both _should_
have transit is not a fact, and therefore outside
On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 04:34:16PM -0200, Nicolas Antoniello wrote:
Sorry for my possible ignorance, but could you explain me what are you
calling transit-free?
Transit-free means that you don't pay anyone else to reach some 3rd-party
network. In other words, if I'm Sprint, I don't pay UUNET
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 1:34 PM, Nicolas Antoniello
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry for my possible ignorance, but could you explain me what are you
calling transit-free?
Transit: You pay an ISP to send and receive traffic to and from the
Internet. The Internet consists of: his paid customers,
And a 'Tier One' nework is a transit-free network that can reach all end points
(end user IP addresses)?
Roderick S. Beck
Director of European Sales
Hibernia Atlantic
13-15, rue Sedaine, 75011 Paris
http://www.hiberniaatlantic.com
Wireless: 1-212-444-8829.
French Landline: 33+1+4355+8224
French
Rod Beck wrote:
And a 'Tier One' nework is a transit-free network that can reach all end
points (end user IP addresses)
A Tier One is best defined as the ISP the salesman represents. It
originally referred to transit-free, settlement-free ISPs, but over
time, bigger ISPs began to play with
On Nov 3, 2008, at 3:49 PM, Rod Beck wrote:
And a 'Tier One' nework is a transit-free network that can reach all
end points (end user IP addresses)?
A transit free network that has no settlements.
Which means no network is strictly tier one. Read
Patrick writes:
3. Standard transit contracts do not guarantee full connectivity
If you are a Cogent customer, it is very unlikely your contract will
allow you SLA or other credits for not being able to reach Sprint
unless you negotiated something special. I doubt Sprint's standard
On Nov 3, 2008, at 8:16 PM, George William Herbert wrote:
Patrick writes:
3. Standard transit contracts do not guarantee full connectivity
If you are a Cogent customer, it is very unlikely your contract will
allow you SLA or other credits for not being able to reach Sprint
unless you negotiated
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 1:26 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. Neither Sprint nor Cogent have transit
Both Sprint Cogent are transit-free networks. (Notice how I carefully
avoided saying tier one?)
How do you explain Cogent's arrangement with NTT (AS 2914)? If it's
not
41 matches
Mail list logo
