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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
* 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
Randy Epstein wrote:
snip
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
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
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
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
On Sun, Nov 02, 2008 at 04:40:20PM -0500, Randy Epstein wrote:
Problem resolved?
https://www.sprint.net/cogent.php
Check out the TITLE of the document. Me thinks it was a
rush job to post up the page and a bit of cut/paste was done. ;)
Tuc
https://www.sprint.net/cogent.php
no nda, eh?
randy
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
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
https://www.sprint.net/cogent.php
Yes, I've read it. They need to fix their TITLE.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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,
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
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
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 TITLE.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
-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
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
-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
57 matches
Mail list logo
