Re: routing around Sprint's depeering damage
Dave Blaine wrote: There are at least three ways to address this Sprint / Cogent partition: 1. Send Vint Cerf back up to Capitol Hill with a doomsday scenario of what would happen to the economy if anyone else gets as stupid as Sprint has been, begging for laws that any tier-1 or tier-2 who wants to de-peer needs to provide all their customers and peers with 90 day notice or face stiff fines. Send John Schnizlein along with him to get the House Communications Director an Akamai hosting account. Repeat the "eyeballs-or-data, which is more valuable" mantra whether or not there are still forty Republicans in the Senate. 2. Pick up some more fiber, dust off the router manuals, and allow and recommend that tier-1s transit any third party tier-1-to-tier-1 traffic. 3. Both. Which is the best way? 4. Multihome. ~Seth
Re: routing around Sprint's depeering damage
Marc Farnum Rendino wrote: On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 7:04 PM, Larry Sheldon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: More regs and more laws is certainly not in the running. Why? That is the way government works, too much, too late, in the wrong place. How about: If there is a need, somebody will provide at a suitable price? If no body steps up, we don't need it. There seems to be ample evidence, in many arenas, that naked capitalism can have disastrous results. There is no evidence whatever that "naked" capitalism has ever been allowed to operate.
Re: routing around Sprint's depeering damage
On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 7:04 PM, Larry Sheldon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > More regs and more laws is certainly not in the running. Why? > How about: If there is a need, somebody will provide at a suitable price? > If no body steps up, we don't need it. There seems to be ample evidence, in many arenas, that naked capitalism can have disastrous results.
Re: routing around Sprint's depeering damage
Folks - At some point, a society decides that X is important enough to the society as a whole, that something official is in the overall interest. Roads, immigration, whatever. That it's necessary to require that some things be done (or not be done). Peering may very well not be in that category, however I think it's worth discussion. - Marc
Re: routing around Sprint's depeering damage
Marc Farnum Rendino wrote: > Folks - > > At some point, a society decides that X is important enough to the > society as a whole, that something official is in the overall > interest. Roads, immigration, whatever. That it's necessary to require > that some things be done (or not be done). > > Peering may very well not be in that category, however I think it's > worth discussion. > > - Marc My response would be to point out the behavior of the incumbents in the telcom industry vs. the upstarts; which are the ones responsible for most of the innovation that actually got delivered to the market? Regulations raise barriers to entry; which favors the incumbent over the upstart. Roads are a bad analogy and will only serve to obscure the discussion. --Patrick
RE: routing around Sprint's depeering damage
I'll make one comment before 'Alex the Hammer' closes this discussion for straying into politics. Clearly regulating the incumbents to unbundle local loops has worked very well in some European countries (France and possibly others). Clearly US financial deregulation has cost the world dearly. So regulation is the appropriate response in some cases (I hope that is clear given the world financial system almost went under a few weeks ago). However, it is not clear what a well crafted peering regulation would do that is different than what the market has achieved already. Sensible and hence pragmatic government mandated peering would require companies having equal bilateral traffic flows to peer or buy transit from each other. That would not necessarily preclude the current peering dispute. Forcing companies to peer when it is not in their interest is unlikely to be supported by the courts in any country, even the French and German courts. Sooner or later these two companies in conflict will either return to peering or one of them will buy transit to reach the other. It is a short term issue that probably doesn't merit government intervention Regards, 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 Wireless: 33-6-14-33-48-97. AOL Messenger: GlobalBandwidth [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ``Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.'' Albert Einstein.
RE: routing around Sprint's depeering damage
> > How about: If there is a need, somebody will provide at a suitable > price? > > If no body steps up, we don't need it. > > There seems to be ample evidence, in many arenas, that naked > capitalism can have disastrous results. And there are lot of examples and ample evidence in history, in many areas, that complete regulation, complete socialism can have disastrous results as well. If you want to have a good idea on how the internet will look like in the US after regulation, simply look at Australia. The government imposed regulation early on in internet infrastructure market caused nothing but raising the entry barrier for small ISPs, only creating government-approved monopoly for major telcos/carriers. Only such regulation creates a situation where it is cheaper and affordable for a smaller ISP to route traffic from .AU to .US, then back to .AU than interconnect directly with incumbent carrier in their own country. So yes, more regulations definitely help the internet indeed (by adding extra 300ms into the process). Instead of calling for socialist/communist policies to regulate the transit industry, the single-homed networks can simply multihome. Because of Cogent, the cost of transit has come down to single-digit per megabit that even after adding transport costs, it's now affordable to add a 2nd internet connection for practically most organizations out there, especially in the continental US (the same capitalism that you call 'disatrous results' is the same capitalism that brought cheap dollars/meg pricing, allowing smaller companies to multihome now when they couldn't afford to do so in the past). As much as we blame Cogent and Sprint for breaking the internet, I also have no sympathy for individual single-homed downstream customers on either networks. If you are complaining about Sprint<->Cogent depeering and have customers demanding for your mission-critical services, then you are just as negligent to not have multihomed before all of this happened. If you need that 100% uptime guarantee, you shouldn't rely on single carrier, nor should you rely on government for more regulation. No one can help you but yourself in ensuring your uptime-- so perhaps look at your own setup and decide that you need that 2nd connection to back you up when first one fails. This is a simple business logic. James
RE: routing around Sprint's depeering damage
On Sun, 2 Nov 2008, Rod Beck wrote: It is a short term issue that probably doesn't merit government intervention The only government intervention I can imagine as being productive would be to mandate what the "Internet" is, and if someone is selling access to it, mandate that customers can demand a refund in case the "Internet Access" doesn't provide access to enough a big part of it in a well enough working manner. If two parties were both to lose enough money over cutting off peering, then perhaps they'd make sure there was a backup path that at least worked well enough to enable them to refuse to refund their respective customers. I see lots of problems with definitions in this model, but it's worked (for some definition of "worked") in other areas and it might work here as well. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: routing around Sprint's depeering damage
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: The only government intervention I can imagine as being productive would be to mandate what the "Internet" is, and if someone is selling access to it, mandate that customers can demand a refund in case the "Internet Access" doesn't provide access to enough a big part of it in a well enough working manner. In some parts of the US, we already have that. We call it "Contract Law" where I live. You "make a deal" with somebody, with notes on paper about what each of you think is to be delivered in each direction, then when everybody agrees the notes accurately reflect the agreement, everybody signs it. If somebody reneges, the lawyers get rich and maybe a repair is worked out, maybe not. But if that doesn't work, probably nothing else was going to either.
RE: routing around Sprint's depeering damage
At 09:33 AM 11/2/2008, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Sun, 2 Nov 2008, Rod Beck wrote: It is a short term issue that probably doesn't merit government intervention The only government intervention I can imagine as being productive would be to mandate what the "Internet" is, and if someone is selling access to it, mandate that customers can demand a refund in case the "Internet Access" doesn't provide access to enough a big part of it in a well enough working manner. Precisely the issue I am concerned about. End consumers cannot go off and multihome easily. Comcast got in trouble for altering traffic flows to its residential customers. Sprint has broken access to its EVDO customers. Does it make sense for end customers to be protected from companies providing access to only parts of the Internet? Sprint could, in response to this partitioning, buy some transit to provide complete connectivity to its EVDO users. But unless they're willing to allow termination of contracts for cell phones and data cards without penalty, consumers are NOT free to switch carriers, and they are not getting unfettered access to the Internet as was sold to them. The other carriers in the space aren't much better. Verizon got in trouble for selling "unlimited" access via data cards, then cutting people off who used it heavily. Is it worthwhile for the government and/or the courts to set rules for such? As a consumer, I would prefer the government protect me from large businesses selling me one thing, then delivering another. Consumer protection is a valid and useful function of government, IMO.
Re: routing around Sprint's depeering damage
James Jun wrote: As much as we blame Cogent and Sprint for breaking the internet, I also have no sympathy for individual single-homed downstream customers on either networks. If you are complaining about Sprint<->Cogent depeering and have customers demanding for your mission-critical services, then you are just as negligent to not have multihomed before all of this happened. ... Ah yes, I suspect we can get all the network operators here to agree that any customer of another ISP should buy a second connection "just in case". Maybe this breakage will turn out to be the best way for everyone to double their customer base overnight. But seriously, it shouldn't be necessary to have two connections at work, two connections at home, two connections for each mobile device, just to ensure that when large providers stop working together you can still reach what you need to reach. Matthew Kaufman [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.matthew.at
Re: routing around Sprint's depeering damage
James Jun wrote: How about: If there is a need, somebody will provide at a suitable price? If no body steps up, we don't need it. There seems to be ample evidence, in many arenas, that naked capitalism can have disastrous results. And there are lot of examples and ample evidence in history, in many areas, that complete regulation, complete socialism can have disastrous results as well. If you want to have a good idea on how the internet will look like in the US after regulation, simply look at Australia. The government imposed regulation early on in internet infrastructure market caused nothing but raising the entry barrier for small ISPs, only creating government-approved monopoly for major telcos/carriers. Only such regulation creates a situation where it is cheaper and affordable for a smaller ISP to route traffic from .AU to .US, then back to .AU than interconnect directly with incumbent carrier in their own country. So yes, more regulations definitely help the internet indeed (by adding extra 300ms into the process). Instead of calling for socialist/communist policies to regulate the transit industry, the single-homed networks can simply multihome. Because of Cogent, the cost of transit has come down to single-digit per megabit that even after adding transport costs, it's now affordable to add a 2nd internet connection for practically most organizations out there, especially in the continental US (the same capitalism that you call 'disatrous results' is the same capitalism that brought cheap dollars/meg pricing, allowing smaller companies to multihome now when they couldn't afford to do so in the past). As much as we blame Cogent and Sprint for breaking the internet, I also have no sympathy for individual single-homed downstream customers on either networks. If you are complaining about Sprint<->Cogent depeering and have customers demanding for your mission-critical services, then you are just as negligent to not have multihomed before all of this happened. If you need that 100% uptime guarantee, you shouldn't rely on single carrier, nor should you rely on government for more regulation. No one can help you but yourself in ensuring your uptime-- so perhaps look at your own setup and decide that you need that 2nd connection to back you up when first one fails. This is a simple business logic. James If things were truly operating as designed the internet would be able to automatically route around this depeering..the problem is not only do these two depeer but they also totally block any other traffic coming in from the other side. This is not how things should be done..disconnect the peering but let the traffic get automatically route around the disruption as it should.
Re: routing around Sprint's depeering damage
> As much as we blame Cogent and Sprint for breaking the internet, I also have > no sympathy for individual single-homed downstream customers on either > networks. If you are complaining about Sprint<->Cogent depeering and have > customers demanding for your mission-critical services, then you are just as > negligent to not have multihomed before all of this happened. If you need > that 100% uptime guarantee, you shouldn't rely on single carrier, nor should > you rely on government for more regulation. No one can help you but > yourself in ensuring your uptime-- so perhaps look at your own setup and > decide that you need that 2nd connection to back you up when first one > fails. This is a simple business logic. Is it just me, or is this awful logic? Really, we DO NOT WANT every site that considers itself to have "mission critical needs" to be multihomed. This would lead to an explosion in the size of the routing table. When two "Tier 1 Wannabes" get into a peering dispute and start deliberately breaking reachability, this is an artifically-generated crisis. It certainly strikes me that someone here isn't making "best-effort" attempts to supply Internet access. One would wish that the customers of that guilty party have contracts which require "best-effort" attempts to provide Internet access, which would mean that a peering spat that results in visible traffic failures ought to open the door for customers to migrate ... elsewhere. Of course, while that might be fair, it isn't compatible with the real world. However, requiring everyone to get a second Internet connection is not realistic. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
Re: routing around Sprint's depeering damage
Well, selling you an "unlimited" account and them terminating that contract if you use "to much" is one thing, that is a stated lack of a limit in your contract. There is no delivery guarantee of your IP packets in your contract, adding one would be a rather bad idea since there is no delivery guarantee in IP that your service is based on and that would open a carrier to liabilities if someone was using a firewall for instance since that is effectivly limiting your delivery to that machine. What you are buying is access to Sprints network, and transit effectivly on Sprints view of the Internet, and that is what they deliver really.. -- Anders Lindbäck [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 2 nov 2008, at 16.01, Daniel Senie wrote: At 09:33 AM 11/2/2008, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Sun, 2 Nov 2008, Rod Beck wrote: It is a short term issue that probably doesn't merit government intervention The only government intervention I can imagine as being productive would be to mandate what the "Internet" is, and if someone is selling access to it, mandate that customers can demand a refund in case the "Internet Access" doesn't provide access to enough a big part of it in a well enough working manner. Precisely the issue I am concerned about. End consumers cannot go off and multihome easily. Comcast got in trouble for altering traffic flows to its residential customers. Sprint has broken access to its EVDO customers. Does it make sense for end customers to be protected from companies providing access to only parts of the Internet? Sprint could, in response to this partitioning, buy some transit to provide complete connectivity to its EVDO users. But unless they're willing to allow termination of contracts for cell phones and data cards without penalty, consumers are NOT free to switch carriers, and they are not getting unfettered access to the Internet as was sold to them. The other carriers in the space aren't much better. Verizon got in trouble for selling "unlimited" access via data cards, then cutting people off who used it heavily. Is it worthwhile for the government and/or the courts to set rules for such? As a consumer, I would prefer the government protect me from large businesses selling me one thing, then delivering another. Consumer protection is a valid and useful function of government, IMO.
RE: routing around Sprint's depeering damage
> > But seriously, it shouldn't be necessary to have two connections at > work, two connections at home, two connections for each mobile device, > just to ensure that when large providers stop working together you can > still reach what you need to reach. I think you're misinterpreting what I'm trying to say. The consumers/end-users don't necessarily have to multihome. The problem is the content providers/web hosters sitting single-homed on either networks, when most of them are physically sitting in better environment to multihome (i.e. a datacenter) than consumers. A consumer can be single homed to Sprint or Cogent, but when the other side (the content) is multihomed, you'll simply take new route to get to that content. My point is, any business providing services over internet (this excludes mobile devices, end-user/consumers) should be multihoming themselves if they are serious about uptime. James
Re: routing around Sprint's depeering damage
Matthew Kaufman wrote: James Jun wrote: As much as we blame Cogent and Sprint for breaking the internet, I also have no sympathy for individual single-homed downstream customers on either networks. If you are complaining about Sprint<->Cogent depeering and have customers demanding for your mission-critical services, then you are just as negligent to not have multihomed before all of this happened. ... Ah yes, I suspect we can get all the network operators here to agree that any customer of another ISP should buy a second connection "just in case". Maybe this breakage will turn out to be the best way for everyone to double their customer base overnight. I have a probably dumb question. Even if a company were of large enough wallet to have, say, a single redundant connection, how could it evaluate the partition problem in order to choose the "best" connection (where "best" is a function of overall connectivity, say) ? It seems to me that that's a really, really hard problem. And surely isn't a static one-off kind of calculation, right? Mike
Re: routing around Sprint's depeering damage
> Well, selling you an "unlimited" account and them terminating that > contract if you use "to much" is one thing, that is a stated lack of > a limit in your contract. > > There is no delivery guarantee of your IP packets in your contract, > adding one would be a rather bad idea since there is no delivery > guarantee in IP that your service is based on and that would open a > carrier to liabilities if someone was using a firewall for instance > since that is effectivly limiting your delivery to that machine. > > What you are buying is access to Sprints network, and transit > effectivly on Sprints view of the Internet, and that is what they > deliver really.. Based on that logic, it sounds like a fine time for me to get into the wireless market. I can save a ton of money by getting a 56k dialup line to $9.95/mo-company as an upstream connection, and just saying that I don't guarantee delivery of packets, and if my upstream service gets terminated for some reason, hey, my view of the Internet is pretty small. Come on. Really, an ISP has to make a reasonable effort to be able to reach other arbitrary destinations on the Internet. That they might not be able to promise access to obscure networks in the farthest portions of China on the end of two tin cans and a string is obvious. But when they can't get traffic across the street because they're actively buggering routes from an AS, well, that's different. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
Re: routing around Sprint's depeering damage
* Seth Mattinen: > 4. Multihome. Or get upstream from someone who does, and who is small enough to be able to get additional upstream upon short notice. I know that this solution isn't always cost-effective. 8-/ (Multihoming alone isn't a solution because it's hard to figure out how independent your peering partners are.)
Re: routing around Sprint's depeering damage
> > But seriously, it shouldn't be necessary to have two connections at > > work, two connections at home, two connections for each mobile device, > > just to ensure that when large providers stop working together you can > > still reach what you need to reach. > > I think you're misinterpreting what I'm trying to say. > > The consumers/end-users don't necessarily have to multihome. The problem is > the content providers/web hosters sitting single-homed on either networks, > when most of them are physically sitting in better environment to multihome > (i.e. a datacenter) than consumers. > > A consumer can be single homed to Sprint or Cogent, but when the other side > (the content) is multihomed, you'll simply take new route to get to that > content. My point is, any business providing services over internet (this > excludes mobile devices, end-user/consumers) should be multihoming > themselves if they are serious about uptime. So my Sprint EVDO (hypothetical, not real) can't get to the DSL line I've got through $cheap-Cogent-bandwidth-DSL-provider (also hypothetical, not something I have, but I know of such a provider. Given they're not at fault in this dispute, I will not name them.) So what you're saying is that I'm expected ... to go get myself some space in a data center so that I can buy some more Internet connectivity in the data center so that I can bounce my VPN connection from my laptop to my home office via the data center? That's insane. Let's try to remember that the Internet isn't the sort of "content provider" and "end-user" thing you're pretending it is. This model is loosely true for some large percentage of traffic, but it is by no means the only usage model. Further, why should content networks be taxed extra in the manner you suggest? Are you willing to mandate that customers in Sprint and Cogent colocation centers must be offered reasonable pricing on connections to alternate providers? You really don't want all your content providers multihoming in any case, there are far too many of them, and encouraging each one to solve its own connectivity problem will result in an explosion of the routing table. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
Re: routing around Sprint's depeering damage
William Warren wrote: If things were truly operating as designed the internet would be able to automatically route around this depeering..the problem is not only do these two depeer but they also totally block any other traffic coming in from the other side. This is not how things should be done..disconnect the peering but let the traffic get automatically route around the disruption as it should. Some of us gun-clingers think involuntary servitude is a seriously bad idea.
Re: routing around Sprint's depeering damage
Nice interpretation of my statement.. A reasonable effort and a contractual guarantee are two different things, a reasonable effort could be defined as economicly feasable for instance. My point was that in Cogents case this is really a force majeure situation and in Sprints case unless you have a contract that defines an SLA with delivery to "the entire Internet" or something similar you do not really have case to break your contract or sue due to the de-peering as a breach of contract from Sprints side.. -- Anders Lindbäck [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 2 nov 2008, at 16.39, Joe Greco wrote: Well, selling you an "unlimited" account and them terminating that contract if you use "to much" is one thing, that is a stated lack of a limit in your contract. There is no delivery guarantee of your IP packets in your contract, adding one would be a rather bad idea since there is no delivery guarantee in IP that your service is based on and that would open a carrier to liabilities if someone was using a firewall for instance since that is effectivly limiting your delivery to that machine. What you are buying is access to Sprints network, and transit effectivly on Sprints view of the Internet, and that is what they deliver really.. Based on that logic, it sounds like a fine time for me to get into the wireless market. I can save a ton of money by getting a 56k dialup line to $9.95/mo-company as an upstream connection, and just saying that I don't guarantee delivery of packets, and if my upstream service gets terminated for some reason, hey, my view of the Internet is pretty small. Come on. Really, an ISP has to make a reasonable effort to be able to reach other arbitrary destinations on the Internet. That they might not be able to promise access to obscure networks in the farthest portions of China on the end of two tin cans and a string is obvious. But when they can't get traffic across the street because they're actively buggering routes from an AS, well, that's different. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http:// www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e- mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
Re: routing around Sprint's depeering damage
> Nice interpretation of my statement.. > > A reasonable effort and a contractual guarantee are two different > things, a reasonable effort could be defined as economicly feasable > for instance. "Economically feasible?" If it isn't economically feasible, then repair your pricing model so that it becomes economically feasible. In some locales, it is actually illegal to sell for below cost. > My point was that in Cogents case this is really a force majeure > situation and in Sprints case unless you have a contract that defines > an SLA with delivery to "the entire Internet" or something similar > you do not really have case to break your contract or sue due to the > de-peering as a breach of contract from Sprints side.. So each and every customer has to negotiate with the Internet Service Provider to guarantee access to "the entire Internet"? You can't just approach an "Internet Service Provider" and expect that they provide you with the capability to connect to the Internet? When was the last time you went to a car dealership, bought a car, and they didn't include the gas tank, or tires, or seatbelts? "Oh, yeah, we've determined that it's economically more feasible to provide your car without a steering wheel. You can buy a different brand of car across the street if you happened to need a steering wheel." Do you begin to understand how retarded this sort of thing sounds to the average consumer? ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
Re: routing around Sprint's depeering damage
On Nov 2, 2008, at 10:29 AM, Anders Lindbäck wrote: Well, selling you an "unlimited" account and them terminating that contract if you use "to much" is one thing, that is a stated lack of a limit in your contract. There is no delivery guarantee of your IP packets in your contract, adding one would be a rather bad idea since there is no delivery guarantee in IP that your service is based on and that would open a carrier to liabilities if someone was using a firewall for instance since that is effectivly limiting your delivery to that machine. What you are buying is access to Sprints network, and transit effectivly on Sprints view of the Internet, and that is what they deliver really.. Sure. Note the "what I am buying" part of this. If I, as a Sprint customer, cannot get to the web sites, email servers, etc., that I need to with EVD0, I will blame Sprint if Sprint is dropping the packets. As a customer, I do not really care why this is occurring. Yes, I might cut them some slack if the site was hosted somewhere like the summit of Mt. Everest, but that does not apply here. For enforcing an SLA, it matters what the contract says, what the EULA says, etc. For keeping customers happy, it does not. Or, to put it another way, if Sprint's view of the Internet is not mine, my view of the Internet will rapidly no longer include being a customer of Sprint. Regards Marshall -- Anders Lindbäck [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 2 nov 2008, at 16.01, Daniel Senie wrote: At 09:33 AM 11/2/2008, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Sun, 2 Nov 2008, Rod Beck wrote: It is a short term issue that probably doesn't merit government intervention The only government intervention I can imagine as being productive would be to mandate what the "Internet" is, and if someone is selling access to it, mandate that customers can demand a refund in case the "Internet Access" doesn't provide access to enough a big part of it in a well enough working manner. Precisely the issue I am concerned about. End consumers cannot go off and multihome easily. Comcast got in trouble for altering traffic flows to its residential customers. Sprint has broken access to its EVDO customers. Does it make sense for end customers to be protected from companies providing access to only parts of the Internet? Sprint could, in response to this partitioning, buy some transit to provide complete connectivity to its EVDO users. But unless they're willing to allow termination of contracts for cell phones and data cards without penalty, consumers are NOT free to switch carriers, and they are not getting unfettered access to the Internet as was sold to them. The other carriers in the space aren't much better. Verizon got in trouble for selling "unlimited" access via data cards, then cutting people off who used it heavily. Is it worthwhile for the government and/or the courts to set rules for such? As a consumer, I would prefer the government protect me from large businesses selling me one thing, then delivering another. Consumer protection is a valid and useful function of government, IMO.
RE: Sprint Depeering Timeframe
All: I am trying to help a small ISP/cable operator in south Texas with VOIP customers. They are having VOIP problems and have been for about three to four weeks. A traceroute from the end users location reveals that their ATAs traverse Sprint's network on their way to the hosted VOIP provider. Working with providers at both ends provides reveals a willingness to point fingers at the IXC providers (Sprint and Level 3) Sprint and Level 3 have examined traceroutes and they have are satisfied that their networks aren't to blame. I'm looking for a smoking gun and the Sprint depeering could fit the crime if the timeline works out. When did Sprint depeer? If this is at the root cause of the problem and I think it could be if the time lines match when the VOIP problems started, then it would fall under the category of why a routine roll out of hosted PBX / VOIP is a bad idea. It would help me point the customer towards a more secure solution of a SIP Trunk with transit specifically purchased from the VOIP provider to the cable head end where the CMTS resides. Thanks! Sincerely, Lorell Hathcock OfficeConnect.net | 832-665-3400 (o) | 713-992-2343 (f) | [EMAIL PROTECTED] ocbannerjoomla <>
Re: Sprint Depeering Timeframe
Between 13:07:00 and 18:08 EDT on Oct 30 2008. (Note the EDT, not EST.) That does not sound like it is consistent with your problem. Marshall On Nov 2, 2008, at 12:28 PM, Lorell Hathcock wrote: All: I am trying to help a small ISP/cable operator in south Texas with VOIP customers. They are having VOIP problems and have been for about three to four weeks. A traceroute from the end users location reveals that their ATAs traverse Sprint's network on their way to the hosted VOIP provider. Working with providers at both ends provides reveals a willingness to point fingers at the IXC providers (Sprint and Level 3) Sprint and Level 3 have examined traceroutes and they have are satisfied that their networks aren't to blame. I'm looking for a smoking gun and the Sprint depeering could fit the crime if the timeline works out. When did Sprint depeer? If this is at the root cause of the problem and I think it could be if the time lines match when the VOIP problems started, then it would fall under the category of why a routine roll out of hosted PBX / VOIP is a bad idea. It would help me point the customer towards a more secure solution of a SIP Trunk with transit specifically purchased from the VOIP provider to the cable head end where the CMTS resides. Thanks! Sincerely, Lorell Hathcock OfficeConnect.net | 832-665-3400 (o) | 713-992-2343 (f) | [EMAIL PROTECTED] ocbannerjoomla
Re: routing around Sprint's depeering damage
I am well aware how retarded this sounds to an average end-user, and for that I am glad I am not in a buisness where I need to explain it to them. But experience gained working for a party involved in a previus Cogent spat I am well aware of what the SLAs and service sold is. You can change provider, ask for compensation due to degraded service and what not, your service is still not defined as delivery to all of the Internet and nothing changes that fact.. But this discussion is going nowhere, and I dont really care about it either since a difference between what you buy and what you tought you bought is not really my problem.. :) -- Anders Lindbäck [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 2 nov 2008, at 17.10, Joe Greco wrote: Nice interpretation of my statement.. A reasonable effort and a contractual guarantee are two different things, a reasonable effort could be defined as economicly feasable for instance. "Economically feasible?" If it isn't economically feasible, then repair your pricing model so that it becomes economically feasible. In some locales, it is actually illegal to sell for below cost. My point was that in Cogents case this is really a force majeure situation and in Sprints case unless you have a contract that defines an SLA with delivery to "the entire Internet" or something similar you do not really have case to break your contract or sue due to the de-peering as a breach of contract from Sprints side.. So each and every customer has to negotiate with the Internet Service Provider to guarantee access to "the entire Internet"? You can't just approach an "Internet Service Provider" and expect that they provide you with the capability to connect to the Internet? When was the last time you went to a car dealership, bought a car, and they didn't include the gas tank, or tires, or seatbelts? "Oh, yeah, we've determined that it's economically more feasible to provide your car without a steering wheel. You can buy a different brand of car across the street if you happened to need a steering wheel." Do you begin to understand how retarded this sort of thing sounds to the average consumer? ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http:// www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e- mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
Re: routing around Sprint's depeering damage
On 2008-11-02-10:14:14, Matthew Kaufman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But seriously, it shouldn't be necessary to have two connections at > work [...] This is less than clear, and largely dependent on a specific organization's [in]ability to function if their internets go down. End-site multihoming in some form or fashion is a growing requirement, and folk thinking otherwise need to get their heads out of sand. If anything, these recent de-peerings underscore the lack of wisdom in end users connecting to (or purchasing CDN services from) members of the tier 1 club directly. -a
Re: routing around Sprint's depeering damage
On 11/2/08, Adam Rothschild <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2008-11-02-10:14:14, Matthew Kaufman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But seriously, it shouldn't be necessary to have two connections at > > > work [...] > > This is less than clear, and largely dependent on a specific > organization's [in]ability to function if their internets go down. > End-site multihoming in some form or fashion is a growing requirement, > and folk thinking otherwise need to get their heads out of sand. > > If anything, these recent de-peerings underscore the lack of wisdom in > end users connecting to (or purchasing CDN services from) members > of the tier 1 club directly. Thank goodness IPv6 cleanly supports end-site multihoming so we won't ever face messy issues like this in the Internet of tomorrow! Oh, wait--could this end up being a damper on IPv6 deployment? "I'd like to move to IPv6, but I can't multihome in IPv6, and I've seen what happens when you don't multihome--so I'll stick with v4, where I at least have the option to multihome to try to avoid being screwed when the net is partitioned like this." Hopefully people recognize that we're rapidly being caught between the twin perils of Scylla and Charybdis here; on the one hand, we don't want to mandate universal connectivity throughout the Internet, we want to allow networks to engage in squabbles like this, and we tell companies "hey, this is the reality of the internet--you want your customers to have more reliable connectivity, you need to multihome" But at the same time, we're telling them "IPv4 is running out, you need to look at moving to IPv6; oh, by the way, in IPv6, you don't get to multihome, you get your addresses from your upstream, and you're stuck with them; you can buy from multiple upstreams, but you'll have to use some type of kludge to switch addresses to make use of the additional paths." With network partitioning becoming more and more an accepted fact of the Internet, if multihoming in IPv6 is not made at least as easy as it is in IPv4, companies who cannot get PI space will not move to IPv6 for any serious production traffic; they have heard us chant the "you must multihome in order to reach the entire Internet, partitions happen on a regular basis, and we refuse to let anyone put regulations in place to prevent them" mantra enough times to realize that the only viable business model for the forseeable future is to use IPv4 addresses in an end-site multihomed fashion. This is the bed we have created for ourselves; why do we spend so much time here wailing and wishing it were otherwise? Matt
Re: routing around Sprint's depeering damage
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 14:09:43 -0500 From: Adam Rothschild <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On 2008-11-02-10:14:14, Matthew Kaufman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But seriously, it shouldn't be necessary to have two connections at > work [...] ... If anything, these recent de-peerings underscore the lack of wisdom in end users connecting to (or purchasing CDN services from) members of the tier 1 club directly. This is the take-away message for me. Buying transit from Tier 1 (and especially almost-Tier 1) providers is a risky idea for single-homed customers. Tier 1 connectivity could be cheaper, and could be better-performing, but has this potential for severe connectivity issues. Single-homed end users would be well-advised to buy transit from a multi-homed tier 2/3 ISP. Single-homed SPs (such as Sprint Wireless, for example) should become multi-homed or buy transit from such a multi-homed tier 2/3 ISP as well. - Eric
Re: routing around Sprint's depeering damage
On 11/2/08, Matthew Petach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 11/2/08, Adam Rothschild <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 2008-11-02-10:14:14, Matthew Kaufman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > But seriously, it shouldn't be necessary to have two connections at > > > > This is less than clear, and largely dependent on a specific > > organization's [in]ability to function if their internets go down. > > End-site multihoming in some form or fashion is a growing requirement, > > and folk thinking otherwise need to get their heads out of sand. > > > > If anything, these recent de-peerings underscore the lack of wisdom in > > end users connecting to (or purchasing CDN services from) members > > of the tier 1 club directly. > > > Thank goodness IPv6 cleanly supports end-site multihoming so we > won't ever face messy issues like this in the Internet of tomorrow! > > Oh, wait--could this end up being a damper on IPv6 deployment? > > "I'd like to move to IPv6, but I can't multihome in IPv6, and I've seen > what happens when you don't multihome--so I'll stick with v4, where > I at least have the option to multihome to try to avoid being screwed > when the net is partitioned like this." > > Hopefully people recognize that we're rapidly being caught between > the twin perils of Scylla and Charybdis here; on the one hand, we > don't want to mandate universal connectivity throughout the Internet, > we want to allow networks to engage in squabbles like this, and we > tell companies "hey, this is the reality of the internet--you want your > customers to have more reliable connectivity, you need to multihome" > > But at the same time, we're telling them "IPv4 is running out, you need > to look at moving to IPv6; oh, by the way, in IPv6, you don't get to > multihome, you get your addresses from your upstream, and you're > stuck with them; you can buy from multiple upstreams, but you'll > have to use some type of kludge to switch addresses to make use > of the additional paths." > > With network partitioning becoming more and more an accepted > fact of the Internet, if multihoming in IPv6 is not made at least as > easy as it is in IPv4, companies who cannot get PI space will not > move to IPv6 for any serious production traffic; they have heard us > chant the "you must multihome in order to reach the entire Internet, > partitions happen on a regular basis, and we refuse to let anyone > put regulations in place to prevent them" mantra enough times to > realize that the only viable business model for the forseeable > future is to use IPv4 addresses in an end-site multihomed fashion. > > This is the bed we have created for ourselves; why do we spend > so much time here wailing and wishing it were otherwise? > > Matt And, just to converge one more set of threads together, including the recent talk at the NANOG in LA; for those of you complaining about routing table explosion, who are having to take steps to filter out routes so that your table still fits in the 256K memory slots your current kit affords, and for those who are panic-stricken over the thought of having to upgrade all your routers in case we allow multihoming in IPv6--it is events like this that drive the message home that multihoming is a requirement even for smaller businesses in order to stay well connected in the Internet of today; and it is a result of this drive for ever-smaller entities to be multihomed that will drive up routing table size, and force networks to upgrade their routers. So--don't want to be forced to upgrade your routers? Perhaps mandated interconnection arrangements might not seem so terrible to your management, if it means you can save millions on capex for router upgrades. I think it's only a matter of time before we're forced to choose between shutting up and doing forced technology refreshes across wide swaths of the internet to support the swelling routing tables that are the direct result of additional multihoming due to events like this (which I'm sure will make the router vendors quite happy), or accepting mandated interconnection and universal connectivity requirements which will keep the routing table size down, as people won't have the same pressures forcing them to multihome, and will let them contemplate moving to IPv6 without fear of being partitioned (which I'm sure will make the smaller businesses happier, as well as the network engineers who will no longer have quite the gun pointed at their head forcing memory upgrades of all their router kit). Personally, I'm betting on the latter outcome, as much as I don't like it. Governments seem to be unable to resist getting involved whenever it seems that some fundamental linchpin of their society is at risk of faltering or failing without intervention. And unfortunately, I've not seen anyone offer a solution yet that solves all the issues: 1) Prevent or address partitioning of the internet due to depeerings 2) Provide reasonable a
Re: routing around Sprint's depeering damage
Repent repent, for the end is near. People like to say that the Internet interprets (censorship, monopolies, clue deficits, et al.) as congestion, and routes around -- but they got the causality exactly backwards. The Internet is an epiphenomenon of the possibility of bypass, which enables "cost discovery," which enables cost-effective routing -- at least wherever bypass is possible. But bypass is only possible where someone has invested in alternate paths, and those kind of investments (no matter how large or small) have been almost always been entirely contingent on positive regulation of the pro-competitive kind... That is to say, the kind that the US pioneered but subsequently abandoned, the kind that Japan and Korea et al. subsequently adopted (and which still holds), the kind that many countries in Western Europe et al. have adopted even more recently... and which still holds.* Those who are currently willfully violating the conventional routing services distinctions would be wise to be patient a little longer; the only thing you'll buy now is cartelization, regulation of which may not ultimately favor your interests. Those who are currently actively attempting to kill bypass altogether would be wise to be desist; no one is going to think that the idea/expectation/requirement of multiple, fully redundant fiber entrance to every residence is anything other than absurd, so the rhetoric of "facilities based competition" is about find to its proper place in the ashcan of history. Work it out, or else someone else will do it for you. And they won't be entirely clueless if it comes to that. TV *re: the latest NANOG iteration of the AU debate: nothing that the ACCC could have done would have made any major difference, because Antipodeans speak English, and ever since 1999 the continent has been captive to whatever CIT could/did (i.e., couldn't/didn't) do. Bu that may be changing too...
Re: Why do some companies get depeered and some don't?
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: On Oct 31, 2008, at 1:32 AM, Nelson Lai wrote: 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? Imagine the news had they all depeered cogent at the same time.
Re: Why do some companies get depeered and some don't?
On 11/2/08, Joe Maimon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > >> On Oct 31, 2008, at 1:32 AM, Nelson Lai wrote: >> >> 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? >> > > Imagine the news had they all depeered cogent at the same time. Imagine the lawsuits and government regulation had that occurred. -- Brandon Galbraith Voice: 630.400.6992 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sprint / Cogent dispute over?
Real time look at the situation: *>i4.23.112.0/2466.216.0.20 0100 0 1239 174 21889 i * i 66.216.0.1 0100 0 1239 174 21889 i * i 66.186.193.160100 0 1239 174 21889 i * i 66.186.193.170100 0 1239 174 21889 i *>i4.23.113.0/2466.216.0.20 0100 0 1239 174 21889 i * i 66.216.0.1 0100 0 1239 174 21889 i * i 66.186.193.160100 0 1239 174 21889 i * i 66.186.193.170100 0 1239 174 21889 i Etc. Problem resolved? Randy
RE: Sprint / Cogent dispute over?
Randy Epstein wrote: > 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.inwk.com NASDAQ: INWK smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Another driver for v6?
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008, HRH Sven Olaf Prinz von CyberBunker-Kamphuis MP wrote: ever heard of the concept "open market" ipv4 address space delegations will just move from the rirs to places like ebay, problem solved. Are you willing to pay premium to get global IPv4 address? Are you willing to pay non-dynamic global IPv4 addresses for your servers? most of it is unused anyway (milnet, amateur radio ranges, etc) Did you consider operational consequences? No prefix allocation database? No routing database? Address collisions? Fighting for announcing more specifics to use your allocated addresses? Regards, Janos Mohacsi
L2tp for DSL
Hi Do you know any free open source L2tp for NAS? I know this software was developed so many years before but stopped any information Thank you Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: Sprint / Cogent dispute over?
On Sun, Nov 02, 2008 at 04:40:20PM -0500, Randy Epstein wrote: > Problem resolved? https://www.sprint.net/cogent.php Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
Re: Sprint / Cogent dispute over?
> > On Sun, Nov 02, 2008 at 04:40:20PM -0500, Randy Epstein wrote: > > Problem resolved? > > https://www.sprint.net/cogent.php > Check out the of the document. Me thinks it was a rush job to post up the page and a bit of cut/paste was done. ;) Tuc
Re: Sprint / Cogent dispute over?
> https://www.sprint.net/cogent.php no nda, eh? randy
Re: Sprint / Cogent dispute over?
On 11/2/08, Daniel Roesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 02, 2008 at 04:40:20PM -0500, Randy Epstein wrote: > > Problem resolved? > > https://www.sprint.net/cogent.php > > > Best regards, > Daniel > > 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 $$$ and not having to face future depeerings). Just my $0.02. -brandon -- Brandon Galbraith Voice: 630.400.6992 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: L2tp for DSL
Try openl2tp or l2tpns. They can both be LNSes. Adrian On Mon, Nov 03, 2008, adrian kok wrote: > Hi > > Do you know any free open source L2tp for NAS? > > I know this software was developed so many years > before but stopped > > any information > > Thank you
RE: Sprint / Cogent dispute over?
> https://www.sprint.net/cogent.php Yes, I've read it. They need to fix their . So while Cogent was depeered by Sprint, we contacted the CEO of Cogent on Friday to try and arrange at least a temporary peering arrangement so that bits flowed between our networks while they battled this situation out with Sprint. Cogent's response? Buy transit from them. I presume one of Sprint's dissatisfactions during the trial with Cogent were ratios. My network happens to have a very high ratio of eyeballs (inbound traffic) vs outbound traffic. One would believe that Cogent would like to offload their outbound traffic to networks other than their Tier-1 peers, to at least give them an upper hand when negotiating peering arrangements with these networks. It's funny how Cogent depeers networks whenever they want, but the second another network depeers them, they cry foul. Randy
Re: Sprint / Cogent dispute over?
On Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 06:05:52PM -0600, Brandon Galbraith wrote: > Seeing as Cogent is going to try tooth and nail to keep their new found Tier > 1 status (and not pay anyone for transit), I would think this would bode > worse for Sprint, since most of their transit customers could migrate to > Cogent (saving $$$ and not having to face future depeerings). Just my $0.02. Unless they need to reach other networks single homed from Sprint... Simon -- Simon Lockhart | * Sun Server Colocation * ADSL * Domain Registration * Director|* Domain & Web Hosting * Internet Consultancy * Bogons Ltd | * http://www.bogons.net/ * Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
Re: Sprint / Cogent dispute over?
On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 6:05 PM, Brandon Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. 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.
Re: Sprint / Cogent dispute over?
Brandon Galbraith wrote: On 11/2/08, Daniel Roesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sun, Nov 02, 2008 at 04:40:20PM -0500, Randy Epstein wrote: Problem resolved? https://www.sprint.net/cogent.php Best regards, Daniel 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. 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? ~Seth
Re: Sprint / Cogent dispute over?
On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 9:10 PM, Seth Mattinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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<
Re: Another driver for v6?
i'm slightly worried about feeding trolls here but it's sunday here. HRH Sven Olaf Prinz von CyberBunker-Kamphuis MP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > ever heard of the concept "open market" > > ipv4 address space delegations will just move from the rirs to places like > ebay, problem solved. > > most of it is unused anyway (milnet, amateur radio ranges, etc) the human, as a species in the animal kingdom, is known to be the kind of animal who fouls its own nest and overruns its habitat. the idea of a tipping point, whether it be for CO2 in the atmosphere or polar ice shelves or explosively deaggregated IPv4 routing tables, does not occur in the minds of individual decision makers. instead it's left to us "chicken little" types, and the only way the individual decision makers ever make their decisions on the basis of tipping points is if some kind of "governance" makes them do so. -- Paul Vixie
Re: Sprint / Cogent dispute over?
Martin Hannigan wrote: On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 9:10 PM, Seth Mattinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
Re: Sprint / Cogent dispute over?
> 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
Re: Why do some companies get depeered and some don't?
On Nov 2, 2008, at 4:33 PM, Brandon Galbraith wrote: On 11/2/08, Joe Maimon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: On Oct 31, 2008, at 1:32 AM, Nelson Lai wrote: 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? Imagine the news had they all depeered cogent at the same time. Imagine the lawsuits and government regulation had that occurred. That would be none. -- TTFN, patrick
RE: routing around Sprint's depeering damage
It would be better to regulate some type of communication to customers *before* depeering occurs, much in the same way that the SEC requires publicly traded companies to communicate certain things a certain times to its shareholders. It's an indirect form of market intervention that can be pretty effective, because sometimes the unwillingness to communicate a bad thing to ones customers is enough incentive for the parties involved to "figure it out". Frank -Original Message- From: Rod Beck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2008 8:24 AM To: Patrick Giagnocavo; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: routing around Sprint's depeering damage I'll make one comment before 'Alex the Hammer' closes this discussion for straying into politics. Clearly regulating the incumbents to unbundle local loops has worked very well in some European countries (France and possibly others). Clearly US financial deregulation has cost the world dearly. So regulation is the appropriate response in some cases (I hope that is clear given the world financial system almost went under a few weeks ago). However, it is not clear what a well crafted peering regulation would do that is different than what the market has achieved already. Sensible and hence pragmatic government mandated peering would require companies having equal bilateral traffic flows to peer or buy transit from each other. That would not necessarily preclude the current peering dispute. Forcing companies to peer when it is not in their interest is unlikely to be supported by the courts in any country, even the French and German courts. Sooner or later these two companies in conflict will either return to peering or one of them will buy transit to reach the other. It is a short term issue that probably doesn't merit government intervention Regards, 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 Wireless: 33-6-14-33-48-97. AOL Messenger: GlobalBandwidth [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ``Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.'' Albert Einstein.
Re: Sprint / Cogent dispute over?
On Nov 2, 2008, at 7:06 PM, Randy Epstein wrote: https://www.sprint.net/cogent.php Yes, I've read it. They need to fix their . 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. Aren't you in one of the "1300 on-net locations" with Cogent? Doesn't that give you a free FE? :-) -- TTFN, patrick
RE: routing around Sprint's depeering damage
>It would be better to regulate some type of communication to customers >*before* depeering occurs, much in the same way that the SEC requires >publicly traded companies to communicate certain things a certain times to >its shareholders. Wait. Cogent's known about this risk factor for some time. Have they not included this in their 10-Q/K filings? Randy
RE: Sprint / Cogent dispute over?
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
RE: routing around Sprint's depeering damage
Top of page 12: http://www.cogentco.com/Reports/10k_Report.pdf Doesn't refer to Sprint or anything. But this wasn't the regulation I was talking about -- I'm suggesting a public communication sent by the peered provider to its customers x days before the partitioning event occurs. This would at least give their customers some time to make alternative arrangements. Sprint's web page points out that even while it was turning down each of the peering sites one by one, several days apart, Cogent did not communicate anything to its customers about the impending last snip. Of course, it appears that Sprint didn't communicate anything to its customers, either. Frank -Original Message- From: Randy Epstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2008 10:50 PM To: 'Frank Bulk'; 'Rod Beck'; 'Patrick Giagnocavo'; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: routing around Sprint's depeering damage >It would be better to regulate some type of communication to customers >*before* depeering occurs, much in the same way that the SEC requires >publicly traded companies to communicate certain things a certain times to >its shareholders. Wait. Cogent's known about this risk factor for some time. Have they not included this in their 10-Q/K filings? Randy
Re: Sprint / Cogent dispute over?
On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 8:29 PM, Martin Hannigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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< I would say it's a "peering spat", because Cogent's press releases stated Sprint failed to meet Sprint's "contractual obligation" to peer with them on a settlement-free basis. That's a political issue that (I expect) remains to be mediated by the courts. The disconnection should have been eminently forseeable by Cogent, if the entire peering was indicated by Sprint as being on a "trial basis". To maintain connectivity, Cogent should have had a contingency in place and taken it, when Sprint rejected their request for settlement-free peering. There is something a bit worst for a single-homed customer than a Tier 1 provider that gets in peering spats;that IS: being single-homed to a provider who wants to say they're "Tier 1" when in fact: they may _really_ be a Tier 2 in disguise. And who as a result of wanting to market themselves "Tier 1" refuses to pay their paid peering fees. Because it means your provider _could_ have taken actions to preserve connectivity, but something else was so much more important to them than providing the product you their customer expect, that they intentionally allow it to get in the way. In other words, if you want to be single-homed, a Tier 2 or 3 upstream that admits they're a Tier 2 or 3, and provides you redundancy and excellent connectivity, seems like the thing to find.. Because a Tier 2 posing and marketing as a Tier 1 might prioritize their continued marketing themselves as a Tier 1 over actually providing Tier 1 connectivity. - Government regulation of peering relationships would be a disaster... I fear regulatory organizations are too easily influenced by the largest players. One can imagine per-megabit "peering taxes" imposed by the feds on interconnections between different networks that only large providers would have carved out rules to exempt themselves from. And artificial government interfering with small networks wanting to peer. Requiring reams of paperwork, registrations, design documents, waiting periods, etc -- -J
Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts
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 page. This way when we run off into another 100 post thread, we can at least -start- from reality (although I would bet serious cash on long odds we will diverge from it soon enough). 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 transit today is a fact. (And please don't tell me how Network X has 100 Mbps of transit in Sri Lanka because they are too lazy to lease undersea cable. If you don't understand what I am saying here, stop reading now.) 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. 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 contract is much different. Transit contract SLAs end at AS boundaries. This is because Network A has no control over Network B and therefore will not give credit if Network B fails. Of course, you can still sue, threaten to terminate, etc., but the letter of the contract almost certainly says nothing about packets going beyond your transit provider's ASN. 4. There is a reason behind ratios which has nothing to do with telco "sender-pays" 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 networks. The concern can be alleviated by cold-potato routing through accepting MEDs, anycast, CDN, and other technologies; to which the receiving network may say they cannot send proper MEDs, etc. Whether the problem can or should be worked through is not a fact, though. That this issue has nothing to do with telco "sender- pays" mentality is. (Of course, the telcos might still have that mentality, but that doesn't change the facts.) 5. Cogent has been disconnected several times Cogent has been de-peered (e.g. Teleglobe, L3, Sprint) and/or performed de-peering themselves (e.g. Telia) multiple times. Cogent has been disconnected from another network more times & for longer (in each instance?) than every other transit free network combined for the last decade. (In fact, if memory serves, for the history of the Internet - but I'm not quite sure enough to guarantee it as fact.) Cogent has also de-peered many non-transit-free networks, at least sometimes without even notifying the peer prior to disconnection. Whether that makes Cogent the bully-er or the bully-ee is not fact, so I will not comment on that here. There are probably other errors I missed while skimming the longer posts. But this should get us started on a good, clean, factual footing for future flights of fancy. -- TTFN, patrick
Re: routing around Sprint's depeering damage
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote: > Dave Blaine wrote: >> There are at least three ways to address this Sprint / Cogent partition > I'd be fairly reluctant to allow the government to get involved in > peering relationships too deeply. Australia has some very wierd > consquences of our government doing so almost ten years on. One of > those is which is that the "Gang of Four" have effectively set a floor > price on domestic transit that is much higher than it should be - > meaning that much content is delivered to us from overseas because the > cost of delivering in Australia to those networks is too high to do so > economically. Even a lot of Australian content is hosted overseas for > this reason. Snap, same problem in ZA. Except it's a gang of two. You don't want your government involved, you want them to go away... Unfortunately our government misinterpreted "go away" as "get more involved, here lies money", so watch out for that too! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJDqlX0FZZWLfHKjURArQIAJ9yljqGppZorgD4Q99JOtCIMIB9igCfSg9D 9erfOYsDSM2IuQxylgcdVgE= =SGyH -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts
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 transit, what is it? Does Akamai have peering arrangements with Cogent directly? Paul
Re: routing around Sprint's depeering damage
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Rod Beck wrote: > I'll make one comment before 'Alex the Hammer' closes this discussion > for straying into politics. > > Clearly regulating the incumbents to unbundle local loops has worked > very well in some European countries (France and possibly others). > Clearly US financial deregulation has cost the world dearly. > > So regulation is the appropriate response in some cases (I hope that > is clear given the world financial system almost went under a few > weeks ago). I think you're making a faulty logical leap. Regulation to unbundle local loops works (sometimes) because it is a simple regulation that undoes what a previous regulation screwed up in the first place. That said, flattening the regulations to allow others to properly build their own loops would likely be more effective, except from a cost perspective it has a very high barrier to entry - however people could form smaller operations and simply service their community then grow that mesh outwards. That is an option I'd take over LLU far more readily. The issue for me comes from looking at the incumbents position. Many of these were government owned entities that were privatised, and then later in some cases gone to public market ownership. It sets a nasty precedent when you hand a company their privatisation, and then later on start bullying them around at a very high legal level. Those are still laws that apply across all other companies too - and in the worst of cases they are applied across a group of 'license holders' which simply further entrenches their position. Much of this also tends to alert governments to the fact that they are financially incentivised to hold their big money churning incumbents as the tax rewards are greater, and if they are an African government; hell, just force your incumbents to give you shares. So no, regulation is not an appropriate response in some cases, you've only confused it with deregulation, and it's one I'm not convinced about either... -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJDqyj0FZZWLfHKjURAo4zAJ4od5mGi+OG644nmen+uEr+G6M/vQCfasQZ 7Ivu9l8zT5aMDliGTDZbk24= =jViN -END PGP SIGNATURE-
