hosted by liquidweb


Go Back   Web Hosting Talk : Web Hosting Main Forums : Web Hosting : Affected by Cogent and Level 3....
Reply

Forum Jump

Affected by Cogent and Level 3....

Reply Post New Thread In Web Hosting Subscription
 
Send news tip View All Posts Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-07-2005, 02:03 AM
travisdu travisdu is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 20

Affected by Cogent and Level 3....


Dear WHT community,

I was hoping some in this community could give me the lowdown
on what happened with Cogent and Level 3. Many people who
visit this site and were affected do not I think have the
technical knowledge to understand some of the conversation
going on here about it. Anyone care to take a shot at dumbing
it down or giving it in laymans terms?

I basically understand that C and L3 had an arangement
whereby they would allow traffic on the toll ways of the
internet they both operated and at some point L3 decided
that C was taking advantage of that situation by allowing
more than the agreed upon traffic onto L3's toll way.
L3 wasnt happy and closed the onramp. Basically correct?

Ok what primarily interests me though is the fact that I
could not access my webhost or my domains, and many on
the web likewise could not access my sites.

Ive heard some mention of multi and single homed hosts.
How does this relate to C and L3? Im basically trying to
figure out from a business perspective if there is anything
I can do to avoid the repercussions this had to my business.
Any suggestions here would be welcome.

Thanks much,
Travis



Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 10-07-2005, 02:27 AM
oztiks oztiks is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 5
I suggest looking here:

http://scoreboard.keynote.com/scoreb...assword=public

See the red bits, it means they dont link anymore.

Multihomed means the host has more than one link to the internet, IE theplanet is multihomed, see:

http://www.theplanet.com/images/gif/network_dllstx2.gif

  #3  
Old 10-07-2005, 02:39 AM
cywkevin cywkevin is offline
Predatory Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Goleta, CA
Posts: 5,550
What a bummer I'm getting some wicked loss in gameservers. Wonder if it's related to this.

Sponsored Links
  #4  
Old 10-07-2005, 05:55 AM
travisdu travisdu is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 20
Dear Moderator,

Can we maybe move this thread to another area (colo maybe)
as there sure is alot of activity on this subject over there but
doesnt seem to be much here?

Thanks,
Travis

  #5  
Old 10-07-2005, 11:42 AM
ByteMaster ByteMaster is offline
Web Hosting Master
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 1,428
Re: Affected by Cogent and Level 3....

Quote:
Originally posted by travisdu
Dear WHT community,

I was hoping some in this community could give me the lowdown
on what happened with Cogent and Level 3. Many people who
visit this site and were affected do not I think have the
technical knowledge to understand some of the conversation
going on here about it. Anyone care to take a shot at dumbing
it down or giving it in laymans terms?

I basically understand that C and L3 had an arangement
whereby they would allow traffic on the toll ways of the
internet they both operated and at some point L3 decided
that C was taking advantage of that situation by allowing
more than the agreed upon traffic onto L3's toll way.
L3 wasnt happy and closed the onramp. Basically correct?

Travis
If I were you, I would ignore anyone who claims you do not have the technical knowledge to understand this. From what you have described of the situation, you have a most excellent grasp of it indeed! I am very impressed.

I am not sure what you could do except maybe move to a different datacenter that either does not use those two "toll ways" as you put it, or at least used others as well.

__________________
||| Mike Bowers - Marketing Director
||| atOmicVPS LTD
||| OnApp Powered Linux & Windows Cloud Hosting ► [Shared] ► [Reseller] ► [VPS]
||| Follow the atOmicVPS Blog

  #6  
Old 10-07-2005, 01:13 PM
MegaHosters MegaHosters is offline
Web Hosting Guru
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: tail -f /var/log/nerd
Posts: 318
Mr. travisdu is routing out of his home town on Level3 which then peers through the net and ends up at our network. It is not our datacenters fault this is happening more as it is a problem with the direct ISP he is using to access the net.

We only have 2 out of several thousand customers who are having this problem right now which is directly related to the first 1 or 2 hops on a trace from them to us. It's really a shame that something like this can bring down network segments and cause problems for us hosts and the end users (travisdu).

Perhaps there is another ISP in his home town which does not use Level 3 as a direct route out of his state.

In any case we have been working hard with travisdu to figure out a solution.

Clint

__________________
Mega Hosters Inc. - The Last Host You Will Ever Need!
Hsphere Control Panel, 24/7 Phone Support, EasyApp, Shared SSL, Daily Backups, Dedicated IPs, PHP4 & PHP5, FFMPEG, Legal Adult Content Allowed + More!
Treating A Customer The Way They Should Be Treated For Over 5.5 Years Now!

  #7  
Old 10-07-2005, 01:39 PM
travisdu travisdu is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 20
Hi Clint,

Yup megahosters has been quite solid in trying to figure out what was
happening. Good host all around. I dont know thier single/multi homed
status but irrespective of that Ive never had any difficulty that wasnt
taken care of quickly.

I would like to find out how the number or variety of ones hosts
connections to the internet might effect ones sites in the event
something like this happens again. While it didnt have a major
effect on me this time, I can imagine if someone had mission
critical data or large amounts of paid traffic on the line this could
be a serious situation.

In this case it looks as if my primary difficulty was due to my
RoadRunner/TimeWarner ISP, as I was able to access via
various online proxies without much trouble.

I do think its in my best interest to figure out how this might
effect people at the host level as thats what they do have
some control over choosing, and I know others on other hosts were
adversly effected. Thats why I started the thread.

No one has really commented on that aspect of it though. I imagine
that the answer is their is a cost issue. People like inexpensive
hosting understandably, but maybe given this recent episode it
might be wise to investigate how vulnerable one is and what
one can do to mitigate as much as possible ones exposure.

What can hosts do to lessen the chances of being effected? More
connections? A wider array of used companies that dont have a
history of antagonism? Higher costs but more redundency? Duplicate
hosting with a quick dns switch just in case?

Im just throwing these things out there as I dont know the answers
and truthfully even maybe the right questions. Hopefully others who
have given some thought to solutions or are or have implemented
them for their own sites/business could chime in with their ideas.

Thanks much,
Travis U.


Last edited by travisdu; 10-07-2005 at 01:43 PM.
  #8  
Old 10-08-2005, 03:05 AM
travisdu travisdu is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 20
Fairly anemic response to my last post it would seem. I guess
professional consultants would be the next logical choice.

Travis

  #9  
Old 10-08-2005, 04:07 AM
vantage255 vantage255 is offline
Aspiring Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Tampa Florida
Posts: 428
Travisdu,
You are really speeking of an internet backbone issue here. While there are a lot of people on this forum that know whats going on, a lot of them dont really want to get into this debate.

The basic answer to your question is... The more networks you buy transit from the less likely you are that something like this will happen again.

There is a LOT more to it, But I also dont want to get into this debate.

__________________
Rock solid hosting and dedicated servers since 1998!
StabilityHosting Where stability and uptime are king!

  #10  
Old 10-08-2005, 04:31 AM
travisdu travisdu is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 20
Thanks vantage for chiming in.

To be honest I could care less about C and L3's pissing match.
I could care less about the players. I only really care about
how it effects me, and how to minimize my exposure.

Seems you are saying basically its a cost issue. Either you choose
a multi honed host or you take your chances. In this case if your
host used L3 or C or both you had the potential for exposure.

I realize that there is no way I could mitigate my own and more
importantly visitors to my sites exposure as its impossible for me
to change their ISP.

But as far as the thing I can control your saying that the more
networks a host uses the less likelyhood of exposure to another
interruption like just occured correct?

The downside of course is that more networks more cost. It becomes
a risk/benefit analysis.

What other options are there? Could I keep a backup of my site
on another host say that uses other networks than my primary?
Whats the best way of making a quick switch to the backup
should the primary be effected...I was under the impression that
DNS propigation takes some time.

Your right I dont care to debate the relative rightness of either
of these companies positions....why argue over something I have
absolutely no control. Hell the mainstream press didnt cover it
in the slightest....didnt make the tube anyway, so not likely a
bunch of people screaming in the dark on some forum are going
to effect the boardroom.

I just want to some quality input from experienced people on
what steps a site owner can take.

Im not exactly suprised that the hosts here arent saying to
potential clients "Yeah the best idea would be to find a host
to duplicate your site on" as they dont want to expose clients
to their competition, but that maybe be the wisest thing to
do.

Sincerely,
Travis

  #11  
Old 10-08-2005, 04:48 AM
vantage255 vantage255 is offline
Aspiring Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Tampa Florida
Posts: 428
If your host has both level3 AND cogent BandWidth then you would have been OK. They would not have been effected. infact. Almost any host with a blend of 2 providers was not affected.
I am sure there are some exceptions to this rule.. But for the most part, 2 or 3 good providers and a host should be plenty safe from issues like this.

__________________
Rock solid hosting and dedicated servers since 1998!
StabilityHosting Where stability and uptime are king!

  #12  
Old 10-08-2005, 04:59 AM
travisdu travisdu is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 20
Hmm good to know. I wasnt sure wether or not both parties
would be effected.

2 or 3. Ok also good to know thanks.

If hosts know well enough that redundency is a good thing
then why did so many ISP's have their Johnsons hanging out
in the wind during this? Hmmm....

I allready use a canadian host as you never hear about hurricaines,
tornados, riots, rolling blackouts, or any other such man made or natural madness going on up there.

So what about duplicate hosting? Any opinions on making that
work?

Sincerely,
Travis

  #13  
Old 10-08-2005, 05:51 AM
siteomatic siteomatic is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 22
WhooHoo!!

It's back up!

#1 192.168.0.1 (Unavailable): TTL Exceeded in Transit, ttl=127, 0.3 ms, 0.3/0.4/0.5 ms, Packets out 5, in 5, 0% loss
#2 10.111.64.1 (Unavailable): TTL Exceeded in Transit, ttl=254, 16.7 ms, 7.7/12.9/17.3 ms, Packets out 5, in 5, 0% loss
#3 24.95.228.225 (225.228.95.24.cfl.res.rr.com): TTL Exceeded in Transit, ttl=253, 10.5 ms, 9.5/15.2/22.5 ms, Packets out 5, in 5, 0% loss
#4 24.95.228.41 (gig3-2.orldfldvsn-rtr3.cfl.rr.com): TTL Exceeded in Transit, ttl=252, 15.1 ms, 15.1/17.8/20.3 ms, Packets out 5, in 5, 0% loss
#5 24.95.224.166 (pos1-0.orldflwrpk-rtr1.cfl.rr.com): TTL Exceeded in Transit, ttl=251, 13.0 ms, 13.0/17.7/25.1 ms, Packets out 5, in 5, 0% loss
#6 4.79.118.29 (so-8-1.car1.Orlando1.Level3.net): TTL Exceeded in Transit, ttl=250, 16.7 ms, 16.1/18.4/23.3 ms, Packets out 5, in 5, 0% loss
#7 4.68.97.193 (ge-4-0.mp1.Orlando1.Level3.net): TTL Exceeded in Transit, ttl=248, 18.9 ms, 15.4/18.1/20.9 ms, Packets out 5, in 5, 0% loss
#8 4.68.128.201 (as-1-0.bbr1.Washington1.Level3.net): TTL Exceeded in Transit, ttl=247, 43.7 ms, 36.4/40.6/45.8 ms, Packets out 5, in 5, 0% loss
#9 64.159.3.66 (so-7-0-0.edge2.Washington1.Level3.net): TTL Exceeded in Transit, ttl=246, 38.1 ms, 35.7/37.0/38.1 ms, Packets out 5, in 5, 0% loss
#10 4.68.127.10 (cogent-level3-oc48.Washington1.Level3.net): TTL Exceeded in Transit, ttl=246, 40.9 ms, 37.4/42.4/53.7 ms, Packets out 5, in 5, 0% loss
#11 154.54.2.201 (p11-0.core01.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com): TTL Exceeded in Transit, ttl=245, 42.3 ms, 41.1/86.1/181.7 ms, Packets out 5, in 5, 0% loss
#12 66.28.4.90 (p3-0.core01.iah01.atlas.cogentco.com): TTL Exceeded in Transit, ttl=243, 71.0 ms, 63.5/65.8/71.0 ms, Packets out 5, in 5, 0% loss
#13 38.112.12.246 (Alpha.demarc.cogentco.com): TTL Exceeded in Transit, ttl=242, 64.2 ms, 64.2/70.2/78.3 ms, Packets out 5, in 5, 0% loss

  #14  
Old 10-08-2005, 06:45 AM
Chainhost-General Chainhost-General is offline
WHT Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 138
Their pissing match did nothing to us. And we love cogent. L3 got pissed and thought cogent would hurt if it had no peering with them. The fact is that Cogent has stronger peering than L3 where it counts. We trust cogent because of the latency we have experienced and the clients we have pushed directly or indirectly to cogent. Check out Cogent on the keynote preformance list and you will see something intresting.

http://scoreboard.keynote.com/scoreb...assword=public

I find it strange that L3 would shutdown it's links to cogent and end up facing the bad press as a result. Intrestingly enough cogent has used this move to go after all those single peered clients on l3 by offering them free dedicated pipes for a year. As stated here in there press release.

http://www.cogentco.com/htdocs/press...l&person_id=62

For there customers L3 should have provided advanced notice to its internet user base to prevent client downtime due to peering.
But obviously that wasn't the first thing on their mind.

In my views as Long as I see a solid green light on my uplinks I care not who does what. I tend to select stable growing companies.
Lets compare the two a little bit. Cogent is growing and has assets to cover it's current liabilites should it file for bankrupcy tommorow. L3 on the other hand doesn't based on the last quarters reported numbers.
L3 06/30/2005
(In millions)
Total Liabilities 8,177.00
VS
Total Assets 7,733.00
A negative diffrence of 440 million thats not peanut money.

Cogent 06/30/2005
(In millions)
Total Liabilities 132.06
VS
Total Assets 382.51

Positive diffrence of more than 200 million

So if for any reason the companies declared tommorow cogent would be able to continue opperations and secure financing easier than L3 would as most of it's long term debt would become due. Granted L3 is much bigger than cogent but L3 is not able to get their cost down to cogents costs for all the fiber they have secured. This diffrence will be the driving factor between the two.

I'm a small host I make my decisions based on long term objectives. Because of Cogent pricing accross the industry has moved lower over the years that and overcapcity. Only industry leaders can move item prices on a national or gloabal scale. Imho


Last edited by Chainhost-General; 10-08-2005 at 06:49 AM.
  #15  
Old 10-08-2005, 06:56 AM
travisdu travisdu is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 20
Lets focus on what clients can do to increase redundency and avoid exposure to the interruptions. Dont think like a host, think like a client.

Reply

Related posts from TheWhir.com
Title Type Date Posted
HostGator Continues to Restore Hosting Services After Data Center Outage Web Hosting News 2013-11-20 16:54:54
SSHD Rootkit in the Wild Blog 2013-02-22 16:44:08
USC Alerts 34,000 Individuals Potentially Affected by Security Breach Web Hosting News 2012-08-22 15:07:23
Cloud Computing Provider Joyent Discontinues Lifetime Web Hosting Deal Web Hosting News 2012-08-17 15:27:50
Hosting Direct Suing ISP, says Orcon Cut Off 9,300 Customer Sites Web Hosting News 2012-07-20 10:43:58


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes
Postbit Selector

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump
Login:
Log in with your username and password
Username:
Password:



Forgot Password?
Advertisement:
Web Hosting News:



 

X

Welcome to WebHostingTalk.com

Create your username to jump into the discussion!

WebHostingTalk.com is the largest, most influentual web hosting community on the Internet. Join us by filling in the form below.


(4 digit year)

Already a member?