telecom) depeers cogent
On Apr 17, 2005, at 11:16 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Apr 17, 2005, at 10:49 PM, John van Oppen wrote:
As a cogent customer, I still see no routes to 217.167.0.0/16 (the
route that holds www.francetelecom.com) via my cogent feed.
That /16 also appears
. Gilmore
Betreff: Re: OpenTransit (france telecom) depeers cogent
On Apr 17, 2005, at 11:16 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Apr 17, 2005, at 10:49 PM, John van Oppen wrote:
As a cogent customer, I still see no routes to 217.167.0.0/16 (the
route that holds www.francetelecom.com) via my
For many folks too the falling price they buy transit for just meansthey
are
being forced to take that off their product sell prices so they
dontactually
make any more profit.. in which case there is no advantage to buying
below cost
services.
In recent years, the unregulated telecoms
They are alive!
host_name(217.167.29.246,www.francetelecom.com).
No ping, no traceroute, but I get their homepage.
host_name(84.167.240.52,p54A7F034.dip.t-dialin.net).
That is me.
217.0.67.105 (217.0.67.105) 9.237 ms 9.128 ms 9.335 ms
da-ea1.DA.DE.net.DTAG.DE (62.153.179.54) 8.362 ms
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mikael Abrahamsson writes:
So what will people do? Stop selling when their networks are full? Ignore
the economics and let other business carry the cost of bulk internet? Go
for cheaper platforms? Go bankrupt (if no other business can carry the
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, Mike Leber wrote:
H, router and optical gear capabilities are growing faster than the
market. Can you say permanent state of affairs.
Do you have any facts to back up this statement, as I am of another
opinion. We're seeing doubling in traffic growth each year and the
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2005 1:58 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: cost of doing business (was:Re: OpenTransit (france telecom)
depeers cogent)
Mikael Abrahamsson writes:
So
Let's say for the sake of argument that by 2010 we want to give every
household 5 megabit/s on average. How could this be done with technology
today seen on the radar? Remember that the households should want to pay
for the bandwidth as well, meaning they might be willing to pay $30 per
Brandon Butterworth writes:
Perhaps they aim to keep driving the competition out of business
to ensure there's a cheap supply of equipment so they can grow
whilst charging so little?
There are several problems with such a plan, even were someone to
attempt it. One, overall traffic is still
Hannigan, Martin writes:
As long as the hardware can keep up, the amount of glass in spectrum
in the ground should make this an impossibility for the near term,
10 years plus.
Fiber isn't useful by itself; there are two obvious things needed to
turn a piece of glass into something that can carry
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, Randy Bush wrote:
fwiw, 100mb to the home costs about that in japan
Well, I dont really see the average home actually using 100meg all the
time in the near future, thus my 5 meg utilization average estimate.
Access could be whatever speed of course, access speed not used
-Original Message-
From: Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2005 12:55 PM
To: Randy Bush
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: cost of doing business (was:Re: OpenTransit
(france telecom) depeers cogent)
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, Randy Bush wrote
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 22:23:53 -1000
Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let's say for the sake of argument that by 2010 we want to give every
household 5 megabit/s on average. How could this be done with technology
today seen on the radar? Remember that the households should want to pay
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, Malayter, Christopher wrote:
I think you're very wrong here. For packet delivery of video based
services, I could see a home using 100mb/s between voice, video, and
data within the next 12-24 months. All of the product roadmaps I've
been looking at contain How to get
Do you have any idea what sort of underprovisioning is typical for this
sort of service in Japan ? Do they really have anything like a symmetric
100 Mbps all the way back to the backbone ?
yep
randy
Cogent is now reachable from OT and vice versa, apparently Cogent
dropped the filters, i see everything passing verio now. Not sure
since when this works again.
Regards,
Jonas
Nachricht-
Von: Jonas Frey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Sunday, April 17, 2005 7:36 PM
An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Betreff: Re: OpenTransit (france telecom) depeers cogent
Cogent is now reachable from OT and vice versa, apparently Cogent dropped the
filters, i see everything passing verio now
to FT just fine.
Haven't checked all possible end points, but my spot check shows
connectivity.
--
TTFN,
patrick
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jonas Frey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Sunday, April 17, 2005 7:36 PM
An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Betreff: Re: OpenTransit (france telecom
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, Randy Bush wrote:
Do you have any idea what sort of underprovisioning is typical for this
sort of service in Japan ? Do they really have anything like a symmetric
100 Mbps all the way back to the backbone ?
yep
Do you have any reference for this?
Provisioning 10G distribution
On Apr 17, 2005, at 11:16 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Apr 17, 2005, at 10:49 PM, John van Oppen wrote:
As a cogent customer, I still see no routes to 217.167.0.0/16 (the
route that holds www.francetelecom.com) via my cogent feed.
That /16 also appears to be unreachable from the looking
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Apr 15, 2005, at 2:10 PM, Fredy Kuenzler wrote:
Paul Vixie wrote:
in other words, sometimes it's better to take pain in a lump sum than on
the time payment plan. if that's what cogent's trying to do, they've
got my support. if on
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
In general I'd prefer to operate in a healthy marketplace, where all
parties are making money, theres little risk of the supplier filing
bankrupcty and I am getting reasonable customers service. That can only
lead to growth of the industry, healthy
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
I'm not sure about the US price war, I just can say that I've seen
an offer of AS174 in Switzerland which is 38% of the price of
AS1239 we currently pay (same CDR). I'm not sure if ths already
justifies hell, but at least purgatory ;-)
Strange, I am REALLY HAPPY when
Mikael Abrahamsson writes:
So what will people do? Stop selling when their networks are full? Ignore
the economics and let other business carry the cost of bulk internet? Go
for cheaper platforms? Go bankrupt (if no other business can carry the
cost) ?
This problem will be fixed when the
I'm sure a few more provider failures
are in the offing - but obviously if the marginal price for bandwith
doesn't pay for the capital costs of expansion, either eventually
bandwidth will be more expensive, or the equipment will be cheaper.
Perhaps they aim to keep driving the competition
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
For many folks too the falling price they buy transit for just means
they are being forced to take that off their product sell prices so they
dont actually make any more profit.. in which case there is no advantage
to buying below cost services.
To
If I may, you sound like someone whom FT has depeered in the past? :)
Personally no. ;)
simply playing devils advocate - who really knows what business model
people are following? who really knows why this has happened? But in
my view this type of action where it impacts customers doesn't
from FT:
FT terminated its direct interconnection with Cogent as they did not
comply with 2 of the criterias of the FT Peering Policy. This Policy
is official and published.
However, route exchanges between Cogent and FT customer remained
possible through IP transit provider networks such as
Do you seriously view it that way? See the financial analysis
available on the web about Cogent and tell me the same thing again.
Same could be said for many companies in our industry at the
moment, I call them the zombies.
I want my packets to make it to the destination. For some
Euros
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Daniel Golding) writes:
This is part of the game.
more like a war.
Party A depeers Party B. Party B has received 30 to 60 days notification.
That gives party B enough time to do one of two things.
1) They can ensure they have sufficient transit and/or peering with
Paul Vixie wrote:
in other words, sometimes it's better to take pain in a lump sum
than on the time payment plan. if that's what cogent's trying to
do, they've got my support. if on the other hand cogent is, as
accused here today, dumping transit at below cost, then may they rot
in hell.
On Apr 15, 2005, at 2:10 PM, Fredy Kuenzler wrote:
Paul Vixie wrote:
in other words, sometimes it's better to take pain in a lump sum
than on the time payment plan. if that's what cogent's trying to
do, they've got my support. if on the other hand cogent is, as
accused here today, dumping
On Apr 15, 2005, at 2:10 PM, Fredy Kuenzler wrote:
Paul Vixie wrote:
in other words, sometimes it's better to take pain in a lump sum
than on the time payment plan. if that's what cogent's trying to
do, they've got my support. if on the other hand cogent is, as
accused here today, dumping
OpenTransit just depeered Cogent.
Currently OT sees Cogent behind Sprint/Verio:
AS path: 5511 1239 2914 174 13129 I
but packets are disapearing in a blackhole.
Jonas
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Jonas Frey wrote:
OpenTransit just depeered Cogent.
Currently OT sees Cogent behind Sprint/Verio:
AS path: 5511 1239 2914 174 13129 I
but packets are disapearing in a blackhole.
So what makes you think they depeered and its not just a temporary outage
or configuration error?
William,
i've got an (inofficial, hence i wont pass it) statement from Cogent
about the situation.
Jonas
On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 15:39, william(at)elan.net wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Jonas Frey wrote:
OpenTransit just depeered Cogent.
Currently OT sees Cogent behind Sprint/Verio:
AS
On Thu, 14 April 2005 06:39:27 -0700, william(at)elan.net wrote:
but packets are disapearing in a blackhole.
So what makes you think they depeered and its not just a temporary outage
or configuration error?
Cogent filters all their peers' routes (or the major peers at
least) so when they
OpenTransit just depeered Cogent.
Currently OT sees Cogent behind Sprint/Verio:
AS path: 5511 1239 2914 174 13129 I
but packets are disapearing in a blackhole.
A colleague of mine at an OLO was telling me
that when OT de-peered them the contact number
to discuss it was a France Telecom
So what makes you think they depeered and its not just a
temporary outage or configuration error?
You've never dealt with opentransit then ? :D
william(at)elan.net wrote:
OpenTransit just depeered Cogent.
Currently OT sees Cogent behind Sprint/Verio: AS path: 5511 1239
2914 174 13129 I
but packets are disapearing in a blackhole.
So what makes you think they depeered and its not just a temporary
outage or configuration error?
In
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 02:43:49PM +0100, Neil J. McRae wrote:
OpenTransit just depeered Cogent.
Currently OT sees Cogent behind Sprint/Verio:
AS path: 5511 1239 2914 174 13129 I
but packets are disapearing in a blackhole.
A colleague of mine at an OLO was telling me
that
It has nothing to do with generating revenue, and everything
to do with Cogent's disruptive pricing pissing people off.
Given other examples of this with OT that I have experience with
I don't believe this is the case. Perhaps with Teleglobe
but certainly not with OT.
Neil.
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 11:28:00AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Richard,
Its easy to accuse people of criminality - that's what you just did. How
about some proof?
Cogent's ratios are very very bad. That's why some people don't like
peering with them. Being sent to sales is a
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 11:28:00AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Its easy to accuse people of criminality - that's what you just did.
How
about some proof?
Cogent's ratios are very very bad. That's why some people don't like
peering with them. Being sent to sales is a common, if regretable
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 11:28:00AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in depeering. However, dealing with Cogent on peering matters is
incredibly unpleasant. I can understand networks and peering
coordinators feeling that it just isn't worth it.
Just for the record, I've dealt with Cogent's peering
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 10:38:28AM -0700, Steve Gibbard wrote:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 11:28:00AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in depeering. However, dealing with Cogent on peering matters is
incredibly unpleasant. I can understand networks and peering
coordinators feeling that it just
They've recently slashed their prices to even more absurdly
low new levels, and are actively targetting their peers'
customers, particularly in Europe. Anyone who didn't expect
to see exactly this kind of fallout as a result really hasn't
been paying attention.
Well considering the
NOTE: Off-list, as I'm not sure this is on-topic enough to post.
At 03:19 PM 4/14/2005, Neil J. McRae wrote:
They've recently slashed their prices to even more absurdly
low new levels, and are actively targetting their peers'
customers, particularly in Europe. Anyone who didn't expect
to see
On Thu, 14 April 2005 20:19:41 +0100, Neil J. McRae wrote:
[..] Clearly Cogent are doing
something that gives them a cost advantage otherwise they wouldn't
be able to sustain this [..]
Do you seriously view it that way? See the financial
analysis available on the web about Cogent and tell me
This is a matter of human nature, I suppose. Everyone is terribly pleasant
when they hear what they want. The true test is what happens when folk hear
the wrong answer.
I've depeered and I've been depeered. I've seen folks on the receiving end
of bad peering news handle it with consummate
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 08:19:41PM +0100, Neil J. McRae wrote:
They've recently slashed their prices to even more absurdly
low new levels, and are actively targetting their peers'
customers, particularly in Europe. Anyone who didn't expect
to see exactly this kind of fallout as a
On Apr 14, 2005, at 3:47 PM, Alexander Koch wrote:
[..] If I was an FT customer and
I'd seen this signal I'd be phoning Cogent now for a quote.
I want my packets to make it to the destination. For some
Euros more I get real transit from real networks. See, all
the world is fine again. He who wants
You're missing the big picture.
No I don't think so :-)
If Cogent cared about connectivity to FT's customers, it
would man up and pay for the transit to reach them. However,
Cogent cares more about the long-term benefits of settlement
free transit than it does about the short term
On Apr 14, 2005, at 4:58 PM, Neil J. McRae wrote:
Surely FT's customers pay for access to Cogents network and vice versa?
Apparently not
--
TTFN,
patrick
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 09:58:08PM +0100, Neil J. McRae wrote:
If Cogent cared about connectivity to FT's customers, it
would man up and pay for the transit to reach them. However,
Cogent cares more about the long-term benefits of settlement
free transit than it does about the
On Apr 14, 2005, at 5:16 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
Surely FT's customers pay for access to Cogents network and vice
versa?
In such a case, FT has done its part by paying Sprint for full transit
service. It is Cogent who is not accepting the route from their
transit,
and who intentionally
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
On Apr 14, 2005, at 5:16 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
Surely FT's customers pay for access to Cogents network and vice
versa?
In such a case, FT has done its part by paying Sprint for full transit
service. It is Cogent who is not
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 05:29:46PM -0400, Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
Is Cogent filtering the prefixes they get from Verio? Or is Verio
filtering what they send to Cogent? Does it matter?
Or OT tagging their announcements to Sprint in a way that prevents them
being announced to Cogent in order
On Fri Apr 15, 2005, Daniel Roesen wrote:
Or OT tagging their announcements to Sprint in a way that prevents them
being announced to Cogent in order to force Cogent into buying transit.
For people interested hereafter our route-server:
telnet://route-server.opentransit.net
German
And if they don't get their collective acts together, I am certain they
will both lose a lot of customers.
[Hijacking the thread here a bit]
I think this is a good point you brought out. Neither provider is
providing _full_ transit to their customers. If this becomes acceptable
to a set of
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 06:52:49PM -0400, German Martinez wrote:
Or OT tagging their announcements to Sprint in a way that prevents them
being announced to Cogent in order to force Cogent into buying transit.
For people interested hereafter our route-server:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 12:36:22AM +0200, Daniel Roesen wrote:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 05:29:46PM -0400, Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
Is Cogent filtering the prefixes they get from Verio? Or is Verio
filtering what they send to Cogent? Does it matter?
Or OT tagging their announcements to
This is part of the game.
Party A depeers Party B. Party B has received 30 to 60 days notification.
That gives party B enough time to do one of two things.
1) They can ensure they have sufficient transit and/or peering with Party
A's customers to ensure that all packets will be delivered. They
63 matches
Mail list logo
