On 16.10 16:04, Simon Leinen wrote:
>
> Kevin Loch writes:
> > Does anyone have reachability data for c-root during this episode?
>
> The RIPE NCC "DNSMON" service has some:
>
> http://dnsmon.ripe.net/dns-servmon/server/plot?server=c.root-servers.net&type=drops&tstart=1128246543&tstop=112897225
Kevin Loch writes:
> Does anyone have reachability data for c-root during this episode?
The RIPE NCC "DNSMON" service has some:
http://dnsmon.ripe.net/dns-servmon/server/plot?server=c.root-servers.net&type=drops&tstart=1128246543&tstop=1128972253
According to BGPlay for that particular prefix f
Richard A Steenbergen writes:
>For anyone keeping score, the
>last two times Cogent was depeered, it responded by intentionally blocking
>connectivity to the network in question, despite the fact that both of
>those networks were Sprint customers and thus perfectly reachable under
>the Sprint
At 9:37 PM -0400 10/8/05, Christian Kuhtz wrote:
>On Oct 8, 2005, at 6:43 PM, John Curran wrote:
>>What I have said that there is *significant* attention to the potential
>>consumer impact of our "non-essential" IP services, and that's not surprising
>>given the historic public policy in this ar
--On October 7, 2005 7:13:45 PM -0400 William Allen Simpson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/1
0-07-2005/0004164041&EDATE=
"On October 6, Level 3, as it had repeatedly advised Cogent it would,
t
On Oct 8, 2005, at 5:05 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
Because FT and Teleglobe are both full transit customers of Sprint,
with
full global routes in, and full propagation out (this is verifiable
via
many looking glasses). You aren't seriously going to claim that
Cogent has
a contract w
At 5:23 PM -0400 10/8/05, Christian Kuhtz wrote:
>On Oct 8, 2005, at 12:25 AM, John Curran wrote:
>>
>>That's a fine set of beliefs (and I might even agree with some of them).
>>However, they're completely irrelevant to the existing school of thought
>>which is guiding policy and legislation in
On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 12:41:21PM -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> Given that at least part of JC Dill's comments were directly lifted from
> an e-mail I sent him, I feel compelled to put them side by side. JC's
> comments:
IIRC, s/him/her/
w
On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 04:37:29PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>
> You mention at least twice (here and in the FT depeering paragraph)
> that Cogent "accepts" the routes.
>
> It is entirely possible, and in fact likely IMHO, that the prefixes
> were never offered by Verio to Cogent. Co
On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> the last two times Cogent was depeered, it responded by intentionally blocking
> connectivity to the network in question, despite the fact that both of those
> networks were Sprint customers and thus perfectly reachable under the Sprint
> transit
On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 09:16:25PM +0100, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
>
> understand the inability to reach cogent was the desired result for level3,
> had
> a contingency been put in place level3 would have been heading in the
> opposite
> direction to which they are moving (they are moving to
On Oct 8, 2005, at 3:07 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
Teleglobe depeers Cogent due to various ratio and market pressure
issues.
Of note is that Cogent has recently entered the Canadian market where
Teleglobe has a strong presence, and has started giving away free or
nearly free transit to
ld invest money to comply with level3s peering
requirement.
but this ultimately results in cogent spending money either to meet a new
peering requirement or paying level3 direct to maintain a settlement peering.
Steve
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Jon Lewi
Level 3 claims Cogent is sending far more traffic than Level3 to
Cogent.
Thus, Level3's viewpoint is that Cogent relies on them more than
they rely
on Cogent. Thus, it no longer makes sense in their view point to
maintain
a free interconnection as there is no similar balance of traffic
On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 07:24:06AM -0700, JC Dill wrote:
>
> Cogent was a "tier 1" until prior de-peering incidents left them unable
> to reach other networks. They solved this by buying filtered transit
> thru Verio to reach the networks they couldn't reach via peering.
For the record, Cogen
Given that at least part of JC Dill's comments were directly lifted from
an e-mail I sent him, I feel compelled to put them side by side. JC's
comments:
In a message written on Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 07:24:06AM -0700, JC Dill wrote:
> Consider a simple hypothetical closest-exited network setup (ho
On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, Jon Lewis wrote:
> If you're multihomed and using Cogent as a cheap bandwidth whore, does
> it matter if their cheap bandwidth gives you 155k routes instead of 168k
> routes? After all, if its cheap and off-loads enough traffic from your
> more expensive 168k route circuits
On Oct 8, 2005, at 11:42 AM, John Curran wrote:
Cold potato routing alone is insufficient in many cases, and some
form of
settlement becomes necessary.
http://www.cctec.com/maillists/nanog/historical/9808/msg00517.html
This does not in any way explain why cold-potato routing is
insuffici
At 10:24 AM -0400 10/8/05, James wrote:
>
> > 3) Possible traffic issues. Was Cogent guilty of not transporting the
>> Level3-bound packets within the Cogent network to the closest
>> point-of-entry peer to the host in the Level3 network, therefore "costing"
>> Level3 transit of their own packet
On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 04:54:52AM -0700, Eric Louie wrote:
>
> DISCLAIMER: From one of the clueless
>
> During this entire debaucle, I never saw any mention of:
>
> 1) Cogent sending "transit" traffic to Level3, which leads me to believe
> that all the traffic from Cogent through the peerin
Eric Louie wrote:
DISCLAIMER: From one of the clueless
As a disclaimer, I will point out that there are some in this debate who
consider me clueless as well. However, I don't believe that any of the
following is in error.
During this entire debaucle, I never saw any mention of:
I've
Kevin Loch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
>> Certainly these are high-margin but low-bandwidth customers, maybe
>> with enough complaints Cogent will be willing to stick them on a
>> smaller seperate ASN which is willing to buy transit.
>
> Does anyone have reachabili
;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 9:45 PM
Subject: RE: Level 3's side of the story
On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, David Hubbard wrote:
I don't remember seeing this public notice from Level(3) posted
Wouldn't that be "without notice from Level(3)"?
On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 01:24:40AM -0400, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
>
> I don't know how you missed it, but as far as I can tell every sales rep
> (3) has was mobilized to call every customer or potential customer they
Errr every sales rep Cogent had, sorry. I never heard anything about it
On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 12:45:32AM -0400, Jon Lewis wrote:
>
> On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, David Hubbard wrote:
>
> >>I don't remember seeing this public notice from Level(3) posted
> >>Wouldn't that be "without notice from Level(3)"?
> >
> >They notified Cogent, not the public. Cogent chose to
>
On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, David Hubbard wrote:
I don't remember seeing this public notice from Level(3) posted
Wouldn't that be "without notice from Level(3)"?
They notified Cogent, not the public. Cogent chose to
I think it's also interesting, that AFAIK, Level3 didn't give their own
custo
At 11:52 PM -0400 10/7/05, Christian Kuhtz wrote:
>Sorry, I fundamentally disagree with the point of view that we need to
>regulate free entry & free exit and throw these basic tenets of our economy
>out the window to encourage continued poor decision making .
I'm not advocating that we need to
Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
Certainly these are high-margin but low-bandwidth customers, maybe
with enough complaints Cogent will be willing to stick them on a smaller
seperate ASN which is willing to buy transit.
Does anyone have reachability data for c-root during this episode?
I wonder i
On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 11:27:09PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>
> Is there any particular reason you think Level 3 will buy transit?
> Or that they give a rat's ass what tier _you_ think they are?
>
> Perhaps Cogent will have had time to buy transit?
>
> Or perhaps - just perhaps - the
On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 11:27:09PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>
> I am a bit confused about why so many people think this is such a bad
> thing. Personally, I believe there is room in the market for partial
> transit providers. I guess that theory is about to be tested.
>
Agree that
At 11:00 PM -0400 10/7/05, Christian Kuhtz wrote:
>What's your point? Are you seriously suggesting this should be regulated?
It doesn't appear necessary at all; industry self-regulation seems to be
working just fine here...
(one might claim almost too well :-) )
>.. let the customers draw the
On Oct 7, 2005, at 7:13 PM, William Allen Simpson wrote:
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/
story/10-07-2005/0004164041&EDATE=
"On October 6, Level 3, as it had repeatedly advised Cogent it
would, terminated free traffic exchange with Cogent. Because
Internet
At 10:15 PM -0400 10/7/05, Christian Kuhtz wrote:
>>
>>In any industry, it only takes a handful of consumers impacted through no
>>fault of their own to generate significant political & regulatory attention.
>>Reasonable-sounding explanations cannot stand if they imply that thousands of
>>inno
At 4:41 PM -0700 10/7/05, william(at)elan.net wrote:
>BTW - it sounds like maybe somebody was required to give 30 days notice of
>service changes to certain customers with good laywers
In any industry, it only takes a handful of consumers impacted through no fault
of their own to generate s
william(at)elan.net wrote:
BTW - it sounds like maybe somebody was required to give 30 days notice
of service changes to certain customers with good laywers
This is my bet. Let's see. Peering went down October 6th. Then a fedexed
letter with nasty threats arrives today [with a fax c
On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 04:23:44PM -0700, william(at)elan.net wrote:
>
>
> And after November 9, what is then? Cogent/L3 depeering part 2?
Part III: Level3 Strikes Back :)
Depeering World Series now at:
Level3: 2, Cogent: 14
--
James Jun
Infrastructure and Technology Services
TowardEX Tec
BTW - it sounds like maybe somebody was required to give 30 days notice
of service changes to certain customers with good laywers
On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, william(at)elan.net wrote:
And after November 9, what is then? Cogent/L3 depeering part 2?
On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Richard A Steenbergen wro
From: William Allen Simpson
>
> I don't remember seeing this public notice from Level(3) posted
> Wouldn't that be "without notice from Level(3)"?
They notified Cogent, not the public. Cogent chose to
not do anything other than hope they won the staring
contest when Level 3 terminated the l
And after November 9, what is then? Cogent/L3 depeering part 2?
On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/10-07-2005/0004164041&EDATE=
"On October 6, Level 3, as it had repeatedly advised Cogent it would,
terminate
Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/10-07-2005/0004164041&EDATE=
"On October 6, Level 3, as it had repeatedly advised Cogent it would,
terminated free traffic exchange with Cogent. Because Internet users,
apparently without noti
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/10-07-2005/0004164041&EDATE=
"On October 6, Level 3, as it had repeatedly advised Cogent it would,
terminated free traffic exchange with Cogent. Because Internet users,
apparently without notice from Cogent and through no f
41 matches
Mail list logo
