Results 326 to 344 of 344
Thread: Cogent and Level 3 [Merged]
-
10-07-2005, 05:33 PM #326Aspiring Evangelist
- Join Date
- Oct 2005
- Location
- Tucson AZ
- Posts
- 367
Update (4:20pm edt): Level 3 has restored all peers with Cogent as of 4:00pm edt. We are seeing some latency in traffic across to Level 3 as sessions re-establish, mail servers deliver messages, etc. We hope the above normal traffic volumes will decrease within the next hour.
SPEAKservers, LLC - Premium Hosting Solutions
Dedicated & Virtual Servers - Colocation - Transport/DIA - VoIP
sales@speakservers.com / scott@speakservers.com0
-
10-07-2005, 05:37 PM #327Web Hosting Guru
- Join Date
- Dec 2003
- Location
- Manhattan Beach, CA
- Posts
- 348
Excellent points myles. for point 5, hot potato is not that common with other tier 1 peers? Or you're thinking mci might be scared by the level3 bully into eating the cost of not doing hot potato anymore? If mci is not doing hot potato, are their in/out balances important anymore?
point 6, although level3 would have the same routing issues because of potential cogent routing problems, mci would be more directly responsible for fixing them. Didn't know cogent had this issue, but makes sense for level3 not enjoying the peering relationship with cogent if level3 has to use up more of their technical resources researching and dealing with customers because of cogent problems.
Politically, you've shed some light on level3's motivations.0
-
10-07-2005, 05:38 PM #328Web Hosting Evangelist
- Join Date
- Jun 2001
- Location
- Gilroy CA.
- Posts
- 468
I'm surprised that there seemed to be so little news coverage of it. Unless I missed it.
0
-
10-07-2005, 06:02 PM #329Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Dec 2001
- Location
- Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Posts
- 6,896
Originally posted by smueller
Excellent points myles. for point 5, hot potato is not that common with other tier 1 peers? Or you're thinking mci might be scared by the level3 bully into eating the cost of not doing hot potato anymore? If mci is not doing hot potato, are their in/out balances important anymore?
As for bullying MCI, I somewhat doubt this. MCI is an extremely arrogant company in general from my dealings, who are still living in the 90's in many respects (even pricing, well MCI Canada at least).
point 6, although level3 would have the same routing issues because of potential cogent routing problems, mci would be more directly responsible for fixing them. Didn't know cogent had this issue, but makes sense for level3 not enjoying the peering relationship with cogent if level3 has to use up more of their technical resources researching and dealing with customers because of cogent problems.
Politically, you've shed some light on level3's motivations. [/B]
If the hop between MCI and Cogent is latent also though, it looks bad on the two parties involved, MCI and Cogent. With Level3 out of that equation, they'll undoubtably look better when Cogent drops the ball. The average user is barely educated enough to read a traceroute, much less accurately decipher whats happening, very few people can discern whose at fault when a peering point is over-saturated, this is simply a burden L3 wont have to bear in that scenario.Myles Loosley-Millman - admin@prioritycolo.com
Priority Colo Inc. - Affordable Colocation & Dedicated Servers.
Two Canadian facilities serving Toronto & Markham, Ontario
http://www.prioritycolo.com0
-
10-07-2005, 06:13 PM #330Aspiring Evangelist
- Join Date
- Oct 2005
- Location
- Tucson AZ
- Posts
- 367
i'm so glad our company doesn't use either provider....
SPEAKservers, LLC - Premium Hosting Solutions
Dedicated & Virtual Servers - Colocation - Transport/DIA - VoIP
sales@speakservers.com / scott@speakservers.com0
-
10-07-2005, 06:55 PM #331WHT Addict
- Join Date
- Mar 2002
- Posts
- 102
Peering only until October 9th...
Unless Cogent wants to finally start talking. This is also Level 3 giving their side of the story:
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/051007/laf057.html?.v=17
Hal0
-
10-07-2005, 06:58 PM #332Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Mar 2002
- Location
- Orlando, FL
- Posts
- 12,207
Originally posted by porcupine
Bad move on Level3's part.
They've let Cogents false publicity get the better of them, and it may cost them dearly (unless they did this to avoid potential action by the FCC). Cogents just going to continually play for time at this point, as they have in the past.0
-
10-07-2005, 07:06 PM #333THE Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jan 2003
- Location
- Chicago, IL
- Posts
- 6,957
Originally posted by Acroplex
Why bad move? They made a bad move to begin with which has cost thousands of customers a lot of money. They deserved the negative publicity they received and surely lost customers to Cogent.
Over the next 30 days, we will work diligently to help assure Internet connectivity is available to all users on a fair and open basis. Further, as has always been the case, we are willing to work with Cogent to reach a contractual arrangement that is equitable to both parties. If this is not possible, we expect that Cogent will make arrangements with one of the numerous alternative carriers currently offering such services."
I would assume that this will last 30 days, allowing customers to find other means of reaching Cogent and vice versa and then L3 will again depeer Cogent, as it is their right to do. Read the statement, and you will see it says exactly what I and several others here have..Karl Zimmerman - Founder & CEO of Steadfast
VMware Virtual Data Center Platform
karl @ steadfast.net - Sales/Support: 312-602-2689
Cloud Hosting, Managed Dedicated Servers, Chicago Colocation, and New Jersey Colocation0
-
10-07-2005, 07:10 PM #334Web Hosting Evangelist
- Join Date
- Jun 2001
- Location
- Gilroy CA.
- Posts
- 468
So - Level 3 finally caved in.
0
-
10-07-2005, 07:11 PM #335Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Mar 2002
- Location
- Orlando, FL
- Posts
- 12,207
It's nothing but a calculated press release. The truth is, it has already cost L3 a lot: bad publicity, complaints, lost customers. The rest is fluff to maintain "Status".
0
-
10-07-2005, 07:14 PM #336Web Hosting Guru
- Join Date
- Dec 2003
- Location
- Manhattan Beach, CA
- Posts
- 348
Karl, acroplex asks why it's a bad move for level3 to restore the peering arrangement and you repeat level3's statement? You just like repeating things don't you? You're just like my wife. If you have points to make, you have to expand on repeating the same things.
0
-
10-07-2005, 07:15 PM #337Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Dec 2001
- Location
- Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Posts
- 6,896
Originally posted by Acroplex
Why bad move? They made a bad move to begin with which has cost thousands of customers a lot of money. They deserved the negative publicity they received and surely lost customers to Cogent.
Your posts are inflamatory, uneducated, and in utter disregard of common sense, and logic in regards to this entire matter; In short, you're trolling this thread with little to contribute. If you'd read all the posts in this thread, or the article, you'd already know this granted.Myles Loosley-Millman - admin@prioritycolo.com
Priority Colo Inc. - Affordable Colocation & Dedicated Servers.
Two Canadian facilities serving Toronto & Markham, Ontario
http://www.prioritycolo.com0
-
10-07-2005, 07:20 PM #338THE Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jan 2003
- Location
- Chicago, IL
- Posts
- 6,957
Originally posted by smueller
Karl, acroplex asks why it's a bad move for level3 to restore the peering arrangement and you repeat level3's statement? You just like repeating things don't you? You're just like my wife. If you have points to make, you have to expand on repeating the same things.
It is not Level(3) caving in, but them showing that they don't want people to be hurt by this and are giving everyone on the Internet 30 days notice to get around the issue, and will again depeer Cogent in 30 days.
At least I repeat the correct information over and over again unlike you...Karl Zimmerman - Founder & CEO of Steadfast
VMware Virtual Data Center Platform
karl @ steadfast.net - Sales/Support: 312-602-2689
Cloud Hosting, Managed Dedicated Servers, Chicago Colocation, and New Jersey Colocation0
-
10-07-2005, 07:24 PM #339Web Hosting Evangelist
- Join Date
- Jun 2001
- Location
- Gilroy CA.
- Posts
- 468
I don't agree. Level 3 got their butt kicked by Cogent big time and Level 3 was weak and folded under pressure. Cogent has proved it is to mighty to be messes with.
0
-
10-07-2005, 07:26 PM #340Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Mar 2002
- Location
- Orlando, FL
- Posts
- 12,207
Originally posted by porcupine
Your posts are inflamatory, uneducated, and in utter disregard of common sense, and logic in regards to this entire matter; In short, you're trolling this thread with little to contribute. If you'd read all the posts in this thread, or the article, you'd already know this granted.
Any more personal attacks? I suggest you stick to the facts, i.e. Level3 recognizing their fallacy 48 hours later. You call it extortion, I call it reality check.0
-
10-07-2005, 07:30 PM #341THE Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jan 2003
- Location
- Chicago, IL
- Posts
- 6,957
Originally posted by Acroplex
I don't really care what you think of my posts. Your self-imposed "authority" on the matter is laughable and the end result is proving the fact that you're quite the opposite.
Any more personal attacks? I suggest you stick to the facts, i.e. Level3 recognizing their fallacy 48 hours later. You call it extortion, I call it reality check.
Why would Level(3) give a hard time/date for depeering in public if they are just bluffing? By giving such a date and not meeting it they would lose even more respect, etc. They are giving the full Internet notice, so no one has any excuses this time around.Karl Zimmerman - Founder & CEO of Steadfast
VMware Virtual Data Center Platform
karl @ steadfast.net - Sales/Support: 312-602-2689
Cloud Hosting, Managed Dedicated Servers, Chicago Colocation, and New Jersey Colocation0
-
10-07-2005, 07:46 PM #342Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Dec 2001
- Location
- Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Posts
- 6,896
Originally posted by Acroplex
I don't really care what you think of my posts. Your self-imposed "authority" on the matter is laughable and the end result is proving the fact that you're quite the opposite.
If you're more educated on the matter, why dont you show it, stop evading the most simple of questions, and show us what you've got:
1. Why should Level3 have to persue a settlement free peering session with Cogent at their own loss?
2. Why should Level3 be unable to choose who they do and do not peer with?
3. Do you believe in freedom? Does that apply to corporations, and businesses in general?
4. Are you aware that the internet transit business is an unregulated market? Why do you think the FCC should be able to suddenly jump in and start pushing people around?
5. Should all peering relationships be forced? If I unplug all of our transit connections, should the major players be forced to peer with us for free, because all of our users are offline? Perhaps if I only remove routes to one?
Can you answer those with non-evasive answers?
Any more personal attacks? I suggest you stick to the facts, i.e. Level3 recognizing their fallacy 48 hours later. You call it extortion, I call it reality check. [/B]
1. Cogent was given 75 days advance notice.
2. Cogent knew the ramificaitons of their actions, as they've done it 4 times before.
3. Cogent posted misleading news releases indicating that Level3 was preventing their users from accessing their network
4. Level3 obeyed their contract, and was within their right to terminate the relationship
5. Cogent has had this happen 4 times previously, with the same result every time, whereas no other major "Tier 1" carrier has had this kind of issue in the past 3 years.
6. Cogent has been utilizing this fiasco as a cheap advertising shot, by publishing misleading press releases, soliciting L3 customers to move, etc.
7. The bandwidth market in general is not a regulated market
8. Level3 has no legal, nor contractual obligations to retain a peering circuit with Cogent
9. Level3 has clearly backed the Cogent PR machine down by turning the sessions back up, accompanied by a statement with their side of the story. Obviously L3 is still intent on terminating the session in one months time, which will still be within their legal, ethical, and contractual right to do.
10. Cogent has a history of "hot potatoe" routing
11. Cogent was sending dis-perportionate amounts of traffic to Level3, outside of equally profitable relationship
12. Level3 felt they were getting a bad deal, and dealt with it in the most (and possibly only) legal manner available to them.
Care to dispute any of those facts?Myles Loosley-Millman - admin@prioritycolo.com
Priority Colo Inc. - Affordable Colocation & Dedicated Servers.
Two Canadian facilities serving Toronto & Markham, Ontario
http://www.prioritycolo.com0
-
10-07-2005, 07:51 PM #343Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Dec 2001
- Location
- Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Posts
- 6,896
Originally posted by KarlZimmer
Well, then explain this line: we will maintain this connection until 6:00 a.m. ET, November 9, 2005
Why would Level(3) give a hard time/date for depeering in public if they are just bluffing? By giving such a date and not meeting it they would lose even more respect, etc. They are giving the full Internet notice, so no one has any excuses this time around.
Time will tell, lets just hope L3 doesen't back down a second time, Cogents built their entire network on other peoples losses and misery, how fitting do you get (talk about bad karma, a financially unsuatainable network based solely off looting bankrupt networks assets).Myles Loosley-Millman - admin@prioritycolo.com
Priority Colo Inc. - Affordable Colocation & Dedicated Servers.
Two Canadian facilities serving Toronto & Markham, Ontario
http://www.prioritycolo.com0
-
10-07-2005, 08:05 PM #344Web Hosting Evangelist
- Join Date
- Jul 2003
- Posts
- 469
Personally I feel Cogent's customers were more affected. I have a single homed level3 feed (fast-e) running some web sites and got, not 2, not 1, but 0 complaints of downtime, unreachability, ect.
Level3 has the eyeballs, so if I had to choose between the two, I'd put my server on L3 for that exact reason.
I think home users can live without their porn streams for a while until this clears up.bye0