 masterdave23
Premium
join:2002-11-21
Satellite Beach, FL | "BS" i smell "BS" | |
|
 | jbjetta
Premium
join:2004-07-23
Laurel, MD
| Re: "BS" Actually not BS. I used to do peering coordination and believe me some companies just think they don't stink. I remember sprint requesting we PAY then nearly 100k per month per fast ethernet peer we had with them (4 at the time.) Yet my contacts at MCI/UUNet said they did not have to pay anything.
This is likely the case with Level 3 not liking its peering arrangement with these more broadband centric companies expecting cogent and RR to pay the meatier portion of the deal. The thing is, if level 3 plays that game they will just loose customers since hosting providers need to get to the masses and that's it.
Additionally, even if peering was cut off usually you would get another path, so it sounds like to me that either peering contracts have changed and you get only that peers routes, or level 3 is intentionally black holing routes.
But that's all pure speculation from years of running ISP backbones. | |
|
| | 
LilYoda
Feline with squirel personality disorder
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Mountains
| Re: "BS" said by jbjetta  :Additionally, even if peering was cut off usually you would get another path, so it sounds like to me that either peering contracts have changed and you get only that peers routes, or level 3 is intentionally black holing routes. That's actually what bothers me...
If Cogent was only peered with L3, then noone could access them. That some people can mean they have multiple peerings.
So if noone whose main access is L3 can access Cogent, it means that the packets are still delivered by L3 to the dead peering, instead of letting the routing process decide where to send it... Either that, or they erase all Cogent routes everywhere on the backbone... In any case, sounds really hardcore to me... | |
|
| | | 
sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
 ·Optimum Online
| Re: "BS" said by LilYoda : So if noone whose main access is L3 can access Cogent, it means that the packets are still delivered by L3 to the dead peering, instead of letting the routing process decide where to send it... You forget that Level3 is really a Tier 1 ISP. By definition, if the links to Cogent are down, there are no routes to Cogent. Simple as that.
If Level3 wanted to reach Cogent in some other way, they would be paying one of their other peers to carry traffic to Cogent, which would mean two things:
-They are no longer technically a Tier 1 since they are paying for transit to some other network
-They are shoveling out money to reach Cogent, which would be the opposite of what they want to do
The quote from Leo on NANOG sums it up rather well:
As for those who want to re-architect the Internet to "fix" this
problem, please go away. It's not a technical problem. It's a
business problem. Two companies, each responsible for their own
bottom line couldn't find an economically feesable way to interconnect.
Any attempt to "force" the interconnection (either via regulation,
transit through third parties, etc) will RAISE prices for all
involved. The key here is that the peering was not economically
viable for some reason.
| |
|
| | | |
LilYoda
Feline with squirel personality disorder
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Mountains
| Re: "BS" You forget that Level3 is really a Tier 1 ISP. By definition, if the links to Cogent are down, there are no routes to Cogent. Simple as that.
If Cogent was peered to no other Tier 1, yes... But since they are (which seems to be the case as other people can still reach them with no problems), I don't see why the whole level3 AS is a black hole regarding Cogent routes....
I do understand your point about the problems were L3 to send packets to UUNet for UUNet to then forward them to Cogent. However, I don't see how else it could be done. L3 is not peered with every single AS on the planet, are they? Meaning they must be delivering some traffic to other tier 1s to reach some destinations.
I must be missing something to understand this, but I can't figure out what... | |
|
| | | | | 
bleearg13
join:2001-03-03
Gaithersburg, MD
| Re: "BS" You are missing something...the concept of peering. Peering relationships involve only trading your own routes and your customer's routes and your customer's customer's routes. Peering relationships do not provide full internet routes between peers. | |
|
| | | | | |
LilYoda
Feline with squirel personality disorder
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Mountains
| Re: "BS" said by bleearg13 :You are missing something...the concept of peering. Peering relationships involve only trading your own routes and your customer's routes and your customer's customer's routes. Peering relationships do not provide full internet routes between peers. I get that. What I don't get is that
1) if Cogent is no longer a peer of L3
2) if Cogent is still a peer with (let's say) UUNET (or another Tier1)
Shouldn't Cogent now be considered by L3 as a customer of UUNET and therefore be accepted inbound on the UUNET L3 peering? Or is it something that's not automatic, and Cogent didn't do that? | |
|
| | | | | | |
bleearg13
join:2001-03-03
Gaithersburg, MD
| Re: "BS" said by LilYoda :Shouldn't Cogent now be considered by L3 as a customer of UUNET and therefore be accepted inbound on the UUNET L3 peering? Or is it something that's not automatic, and Cogent didn't do that? No, Cogent is not a customer of UUNet. That's the whole point of peering. While Cogent does pay at least one Tier 1 for transit, they only pay that Tier 1 for their routes and their customer's routes. That's the whole point of peering - you trade only certain routes - not a full routing table. A true Tier 1 in the traditional sense of the term, does not pay *anyone* for bandwidth or peering. They only invest in themselves for the upkeep, equipment, and maintenance of the peering session(s).
For example, If MCI/UUNEt one day decides that Sprint is no longer providing a mutually beneficial peering arrangement (Sprint sending more traffic to UUNet than UUNet is sending back), and UUNet de-peers Sprint, then UUNet and Sprint networks will not reach each other. It has nothing to do with access lists or access filters. It's how the internet and the underlying BGP protocol work. Sprint would then be left to either re-negotiate their ASSES off with UUNet, or be forced to purchase transit from UUNet or another Tier 1.
This has happened before with large providers and will continue to happen every once in a while. It's unfortunate that the smaller fish is almost always the one who will pay dearly in the end, but that's how life (and the internet) is. It's full of uncertainty and unfairness. | |
|
| | | | audiog
join:2004-08-09
Detroit, MI
| It is called the TRO the FCC ruled in March of ordered that the Unbundled Network Elements in Co's with more then 50% fiber will no longer be tied to a cost base report done on an annual review by the Regional Bells who own the majority of the CO space in the US. This means Bellsouth, Verizon, SBC and Qwest can charge a market or commercial rate that is not that much lower than what a reseller pays. All of the big deals that Level3 has done in the last few months are with guys that are resellers ( Vonage, 8X8, Earthlink; Comcast and Adelphia are users of the Regional Bells UNE-Platform that is going away in March 2006). With the network recon-figs and the reroutes that are happening due to down fiber in the south this is a sucky time.
Cogent is now looking for a new partner while Level3 is becoming a VoIP carrier carrier and giving them a high QoS. With short hops from the internet into a VoIP gateway with a global network.
This is the World that the FCC wants.
Now you know why AT&T and MCI looked so good to SBC and Verizon. Forget UUNET its the global Fiber bandwidth at the number 1 and 2 long-distance carriers have. VoIP, Video, music and more with a house past network that none of the cable guys or the Direct TVs of the world can match. Now can they make it work????? | |
|
| | | 
phillips2003
@qwest.net
| It's not the case that L3 is dropping the packets. Think about it. If Cogent was truely a Tier 1 ISP, they would have multiple peering connection as does L3. L3 has over 300 Gigs of peering connections. If they close down thier Cogent connection, and an L3 router gets a request for a cogent route, they send it to one of thier other peers, and it would in-turn deliver to cogent. That only works if 1 - Cogent has peering agreements with others and 2 Cogent doesn't black-hole a packet with an L3 header. Since cogent has other perring agreements, then Cogent must be dropping every single packet it sees from L3. It is the ONLY explaination...Right? I asked some friends with cogent service to trace route a ping they made to L3 web site. It died. I asked them to ping MCI web site, low and behold it went right through. My company uses L3, so i asked the guys to do the sames test, the trace route said that the request to Cogent's web site was routed via a UUnet router, then it died.
It as simple as that...Cogent, with 60 days notice from L3 that they were going to de-peer them, did nothing to prepare the event, instead made a political power play and is blaming L3.
| |
|
| | | |
bleearg13
join:2001-03-03
Gaithersburg, MD
| Re: "BS" said by phillips2003 :
It's not the case that L3 is dropping the packets. Think about it. If Cogent was truely a Tier 1 ISP, they would have multiple peering connection as does L3. Do some research before you post. Cogent peers with more networks than some of the largest Tier 1 providers.
said by phillips2003 :
If they close down thier Cogent connection, and an L3 router gets a request for a cogent route, they send it to one of thier other peers, and it would in-turn deliver to cogent. That only works if 1 - Cogent has peering agreements with others and 2 Cogent doesn't black-hole a packet with an L3 header. Wrong again. There are *multiple* L3/Cogent peering points. You obviously don't understand how the internet works. If L3 shuts down their Cogent peering sessionS, then they cannot reach Cogent and vice versa because there is NO ROUTE to the Cogent network. Peers do not announce other peers' networks to each other. That would be called TRANSIT, not PEERING. Read up on BGP and the concept of AS-paths before you spread misinformation like you know what you're talking about.
said by phillips2003 :
I asked them to ping MCI web site, low and behold it went right through. Wow, you're a regular Inspector Gadget, aren't you? If this were true, you would know that MCI blocks ICMP echo-requests and echo-responses to their website.
said by phillips2003 :
My company uses L3, so i asked the guys to do the sames test, the trace route said that the request to Cogent's web site was routed via a UUnet router, then it died. Where's the traceroute? How come you didn't do it yourself?
said by phillips2003 :
It as simple as that...Cogent, with 60 days notice from L3 that they were going to de-peer them, did nothing to prepare the event, instead made a political power play and is blaming L3. I do agree with you on this point.
| |
|
| | 
Jerm
join:2000-04-10
Richland, WA
| Blackholed... Thats exactly what Level3 did.
Normally if the links between Level3 & Cogent went down, traffic would just flow through one of the other Tier1 providers - Sprint, UUnet, etc. Thats the whole beauty of the 'net!
But Level3 is actually blocking traffic by removing the BGP routes on its routers to all of Cogent!
If a Level3 customer tries send a packet to a Cogent site the routers respond with no route to host.
If a Cogent customer tries to send a packet to a Level3 customer, its actually still getting there through alternate routes via other Tier-1 ISPs, but with no way to respond it doesn't work. | |
|
| | | vferrari3
join:2005-10-07
Boston, MA
| Re: Blackholed... said by Jerm :Thats exactly what Level3 did. False. The way it works is that Level3 routers receive the Cogent routes either from Cogent over peering links or from other providers that cogent uses as transit. If Level3 doesn't receive the routes one way or the other then they don't have a path to Cogent. The peering links were turned off with multiple weeks' notice and Cogent did not make the arrangements for Level3 to get the routes through one of their transit providers. Cogent could have sent the routes as well as received the level3 routes through someone like Verio.
_VF | |
|
|
phillip2003
@qwest.net
| WHAT?? L3 should pay millions of dollars a year to maintain peering conenctions that provide them no value?? peering only works if something is mutually benefitial. Routers, cards and data center space, power and cooling isn't free.
Simple test - an equitable agreement would be what?? your inlaws could stay with you for two weeks a year, in exchange, you get to use thier beach front Hawaii house for two weeks a year. Instead, they stay with you for 40 weeks a year, and you get thier house for 12 hours per year? is that equitable? You get to pay for the increased food, water, gas and electric bill. | |
|
|
TLWiz
@207.246.x.x
| I smell a lot of BS, I just received a fax from CI Hosting explaining in a panic that my websites are no longer accessible because of the Level3 Cogent spat - so I should use them for hosting. I have 2 national ISPs, neither of which is Cogent or Level3...
If CI Hosting stoops to sending out fraudulent junk faxes trying to drum up business, they must be desperate losers... | |
|
phantom6294
join:2002-02-27
Abingdon, MD | It's mommy time... ...someone needs to get these guy's mothers into the situation, tug on some ears and get these hard-headed, stubborn jack@sses to get this straightened out. | |
|
| NGOwner
join:2000-11-21
Leawood, KS | Re: It's mommy time... lol | |
|
|
TMBackstrom
join:2002-11-23
Broomfield, CO |  Earthlink Denver Rerouting Cogent Traffic
| |
|
| 
trparky
Bite My Shiny Metal Ass
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-24
Cleveland, OH
clubs: | Re: Earthlink Denver Rerouting Cogent Traffic You mean to tell me that Earthlink totally relies on Cogent bandwidth? Oh Holy Mother of God! | |
|
| | TMBackstrom
join:2002-11-23
Broomfield, CO
| Re: Earthlink Denver Rerouting Cogent Traffic Nope. Here in Denver they were totally reliant on Level 3's network. Yesterday while trying to reach Cogent network resources, the Level 3 routers would just drop the request. Last night, Earthlink rerouted all requests for Cogent network addresses through WCG.NET routers to get to the Cogent network. | |
|
| | | 
webnetwiz
There's no place like 127.0.0.1
Premium
join:2004-09-22
Van Nuys, CA
| Re: Earthlink Denver Rerouting Cogent Traffic Just an FYI, EarthLink (a nation-wide ISP) doesn't actually own it's network, its Internet backbone is leased from Level3 (mostly, they do use Sprint in a lot of places as well). All they have is internet facing routers sitting on those leased circuits. | |
|
| | | | TMBackstrom
join:2002-11-23
Broomfield, CO | Re: Earthlink Denver Rerouting Cogent Traffic Either way. Someone patched the routing for us. I don't think it was Level 3 though. | |
|
| | | |
sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
·Optimum Online
| said by webnetwiz :Just an FYI, EarthLink (a nation-wide ISP) doesn't actually own it's network, its Internet backbone is leased from Level3 (mostly, they do use Sprint in a lot of places as well). All they have is internet facing routers sitting on those leased circuits. How sad that a major consumer ISP is single-homed. I do work at a much smaller shop (ie: one PoP in NYC), and they are multi-homed. If nothing else, it lets us seemlessly ride through Level3's maintenance windows. And now it's allowing us to reach Cogent via our secondary provider. Not a single blip for their customers, which is as it should be in this day and age. | |
|
| | | | |
webnetwiz
There's no place like 127.0.0.1
Premium
join:2004-09-22
Van Nuys, CA
| Re: Earthlink Denver Rerouting Cogent Traffic EarthLink is multihomed. They peer with other carriers at major POPs, and they run BGP on the internet facing routers. What I meant to say is that they don't have their own fiber anywhere in the ground. In fact, other than the telcos, there are not that many companies (and even fewer municipalities) that do. | |
|
chris
focus
Premium
join:2000-08-13
Middletown, CT
 ·NETPLEX
| Interesting Comment I read on another board... I do not wknow who wrote this but I saw it on another board. I thought it was interesting.
(snip)
The thing is that Level3 *isn't* being an asshole. They were giving Cogent free connectivity to their network. At some point, level3 decided that the peering agreement was one-sided and Cogent was getting more out of the free connectivity than Level3 was so they asked Cogent to pay for it. Cogent refused. Level3 cut off the free connectivity. There are lots of reasons why this will work out better for Level3 than for Cogent.
First of all, Cogent's network sucks and always has so just about every content provider on Cogent also has a backup provider. This means that even if Level3 cuts off Cogent, Level3 can still reach Cogent's customers via the backup (multihomed) path. It just means that the traffic to level3 takes the backup path.
Secondly, Cogent has almost no end-user eyeballs on their net, they are mostly high bandwidth (porn) providers. In other words, most of the traffic flows OUT of Cogent's network and very little flows in. When you make a peering agreement with someone it is generally done to the mutual benefit of both parties. In this case, the peering was to Cogent's benefit but level3 probably didn't have a lot of traffic headed towards Cogent so the agreement was really one sided. What eyeballs Cogent has is for their leased dialup service which competes directly with Level3's leased dialup service.
Thirdly, Cogent undercuts everyone's pricing. Why should Level3 give free connectivity to someone who is taking business away from them and whose network isn't a major destination for their traffic, and whose customers it can reach anyway over an alternative path?
Bottom line ... Cogent is a tick on the ass of the Internet and unless they clean up their act and actually make it worthwhile to peer with them, other providers are likely to follow Level3's lead.
(/snip)
Basically how I feel but was too lazy to paraphrase  | |
|
|
elpikachupacabra
@172.20.x.x | Re: Interesting Comment I read on another board... That's tellin' the bastereds. | |
|
mishaq
Premium
join:2004-01-24
Richardson, TX
clubs: | Hey What's cognet's website? I don't trust a company google can't find
--
Damn you FCC! | |
|
| |
| 
scooby
Premium
join:2001-05-01
Schaumburg, IL
| said by mishaq :What's cognet's website? I don't trust a company google can't find www.cogentco.com | |
|
| 
seanbperiod
join:2005-09-03
Binghamton, NY | probably because you are spelling it wrong. cogent, not cognet | |
|
| | mishaq
Premium
join:2004-01-24
Richardson, TX
clubs: | Re: Hey Merci | |
|
kdwycha
join:2003-01-30
Riverview, FL | :| Website cannot be accessed I guess RoadRunner Tampa uses Level3  | |
|
|
Noone
@mybrighthouse.com | Re: :| Roadrunner has main connections through ATDN who gets their pipes from Level3. | |
|
| 
minidu
Premium
join:2002-09-28
Mackinac Island, MI
| said by kdwycha :Website cannot be accessed I guess RoadRunner Tampa uses Level3 If it makes you feel any better, in Daytona, on a Fiber Pipe from Brighthouse (IE RR) I can't hit it either, and I know the route from here is via Level3
--
Experience -- a great teacher, but the tutition fees... . BOFH | |
|
| | 
FTCXtreme
join:2005-03-14
New Braintree, MA | Re: :| Wont work for me either. Probabley because people pc is connected though level3. | |
|
Vchat20
Landing is the REAL challenge
join:2003-09-16
Warren, OH
clubs: | Sprintlink not affected? im assuming users who go through sprintlink backbones are not affected in this mess? if so, thats a load off my mind. | |
|
| 
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0 | Re: Sprintlink not affected? Any user attempting to access a site that the routing path takes it across a level3 cogent peering will be impacted whatever ISP they deal with. Until level3 and cogent start rerouting, or reach a deal, the problem will continue. | |
|
| | hypercooljak
join:2003-09-12
Appleton, WI
clubs: | Re: Sprintlink not affected? I was under the assumption that if your ISP uses the level3 backbone you won't be able to access cogent hosted sites and so therefore if your ISP doesn't use the level3 backbone, you won't have problems. Am I wrong? | |
|
| | |
trparky
Bite My Shiny Metal Ass
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-24
Cleveland, OH
clubs:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: Sprintlink not affected? It all comes down to the fact that if you want maximum uptime for your web site, your server better be in a good data center with more than one connection to the Internet.
Look at data centers like The Planet, DedicatedNow, NAC, they all have multiple connections to multiple backbone providers.
--
WedgeAntilles250
Tom's Rant | |
|
| | | TMBackstrom
join:2002-11-23
Broomfield, CO | Or if you need to go from a Cogent network to the Level 3 network. Level 3 cut the peering both ways. | |
|
| | | | vferrari3
join:2005-10-07
Boston, MA
| Re: Sprintlink not affected? said by TMBackstrom :Or if you need to go from a Cogent network to the Level 3 network. Level 3 cut the peering both ways. Single homed customers only. Multi-homed customers will have routes via other providers. People are saying that Level3 was missing about 1000 routes and Cogent about 4000 out of the overall 150k on the Internet today.
_VF | |
|
whitemule02
@38.96.x.x | Month Credit RR customers can request 1 month credit (free internet is always a good thing) and will get it. Just call RR tech support. | |
|
| phantom6294
join:2002-02-27
Abingdon, MD | Re: Month Credit I am surprised they would offer give this... since really, it isn't their fault... but kudos for RR doing it nevertheless. | |
|
| |
sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
·Optimum Online
| Re: Month Credit said by phantom6294 :I am surprised they would offer give this... since really, it isn't their fault... Actually, it is. There's no excuse for RR to buy transit from only one source. | |
|
| | |
minidu
Premium
join:2002-09-28
Mackinac Island, MI
| Re: Month Credit said by sporkme :said by phantom6294 :I am surprised they would offer give this... since really, it isn't their fault... Actually, it is. There's no excuse for RR to buy transit from only one source. Wonder if that works with Brighthouse, and a DAC
--
Experience -- a great teacher, but the tutition fees... . BOFH | |
|
| The Way Out
join:2003-01-20 | Posted from a Cogent IP address. How ironic. | |
|
rootberg
join:2000-08-30
Vernon Hills, IL
clubs: | Loosing money My company has may clients in MS and TX that use RR and can no longer reach our site. Because of this, we are loosing money to our competition (that is if they can reach them) | |
|
|
|
NKpoo
@Dial1.Dal
| Re: SBC customers Sorry if this is a dumb question, but I want to make sure I understand right. So, if I switch my ISP to SBC Yahoo dial up, I should be unaffected? I'm on Earthlink right now, and they keep trying to convince me it's my computer's problem and refuse to read the articles and websites I link them to.  | |
|
| | 
David
No,there is another.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
clubs:
 ·DIRECTV
 ·magicjack.com
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: SBC customers Well the present SBC customers I was advised should be unaffected, unless you attempt to possibly hit a cogent site via level 3. However from what I gathered yesterday that should not be the case based on the peering agreements between level 3 and us. You still might have the connection problems to cogent hosted sites. That is the unknown, I was mainly advised it should not affect SBC customers greatly or should be minimal impact.
Here is part of the conversation I had with one person that works on the backside of things. Names removed to protect the innocent.
linked to article for reference for "peerin fool" » Level 3 Peering Changes Causing HeadachesBeach boy(17:46:38): I suspect seeing pages on cogent networks might be kind of hard to do and other customers trying to vpn to other locations might cause our traffic to increase. Beach boy(17:46:52): please advise when you have a free minute, and thanks ahead of time.. peerin fool(17:51:00): this sounds like a problem where customers of Cogent's network will not be directly handed off to Level3. We peer directly to Level3 ourselves, so no outgoing problems there....now as far as how we get to Cogent's network, that's anybody's guess depending on the links, routes, and costs of the links Beach boy(17:52:13): So technically if a webpage is on cogent's network a SBC user might not be able to see it... depending on costs of the links. peerin fool(17:52:58): they should be able to get there....just not via Level3 - Cogent should have multilple peers as we do Beach boy(17:53:47): We are a peer ourselves aren't we? Beach boy(17:53:58): nvrmind you just answered that peerin fool(17:54:16): yes we are an entity ourselves...we are considered a peer
--
If you have a topic in the direct forum please reply to it or a post of mine, I get a notification when you do this. Koetting Ford, Granite City, illinois... YOU'RE FIRED!! | |
|
| | |
| | |
NKpoo
@192.112.x.x | Re: SBC customers I'm on Earthlink dial up. The proxies and other fixes in the Earthlink forum won't work for me. | |
|
| | | | |
MysticGogeta
The Robot Devil
Premium
join:2005-03-14
League City, TX
clubs: | Dumb question but i have to ask Is level 3 Goverment control or is it just a company that routes to web sites? | |
|
| bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | Re: Dumb question but i have to ask Its a Tier 1 backbone provider...
»www.level3.com/ | |
|
| TMBackstrom
join:2002-11-23
Broomfield, CO | No, they aren't government controlled. They are a publicly traded (Nasdaq: LVLT) company. Their corporate HQ is right down the street from me.
»www.level3.com/578.html | |
|
|
JoeSchmoe007
join:2003-01-19
New York, NY | Please enlighten me... what are the implications of this regarding email routing? Will it bounce (and I will then know it didn't go through) or it will just disappear and I will never know about it? | |
|
| psubill78
Premium
join:2003-01-26
Kenosha, WI | Re: Please enlighten me... When you goto send your email to domain.com, domain.com will no longer exist because the DNS entries are dropping off.
Your mail will be bounced back. Unable to send. | |
|
kd6cae
P2p Shouldn't Be A Crime
join:2001-08-27
Lancaster, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| RR the only ISP effected by this? I was doing some testing, and noticed that I could not get to a friend's rr.com internet address from a Cogentco.com connected server I have access to. It timed out right away before it even got to hop 2. This server only has a cogentco connection, so I was able to test and see exactly what the issue was for myself. Most ISP's I know have multiple peers, for example I know Cox San Diego piers with Level 3 and Cogentco directly, so one terminates the other, cox users won't have to worry. Is RR the only ISP that has just one transit peer? This obviously is not RR's fault of course, but I haven't heard of any other ISP having any issues presumably because they're smart and have at least 2 transit peers? By the way if anyone wants me to see if I can get to their IP from the cogentco server, just let me know. | |
|
| TMBackstrom
join:2002-11-23
Broomfield, CO | Re: RR the only ISP effected by this? Time Warner is affected. And yesterday my Earthlink DSL couldn't reach Cogent addresses either. | |
|
| 
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN | The problem arises when all your traffic that was going over two peers now goes over one peer. If their was a ratio problem, then your remaining peer is going to get ticked off and might want to drop you as a result. | |
|
| |
Vinman911
join:2002-11-09
Torrance, CA
1 edit | RR in Los Angeles routing resolved! At least for me, it just started working again so either someone blinked or they re-routed! | |
|
| 
BWolf6
Advanced User
join:2003-11-10
Marathon, ON | Re: RR in Los Angeles routing resolved! Looks like they are slowly re-routing crap.. | |
|
| | slothmonkey
join:2004-06-11
Kernersville, NC | Re: RR in Los Angeles routing resolved! Mine just started working as well...lets hope it stays that way. | |
|
mohito
Premium
join:2003-09-29
New York, NY
| Does anyone know what Drudgereport did? I can't access a lot of sites, but Drudge Report came back up quick as always today, not not yesterday. Hmm usual I should say instead of always given this, and I think that was one of the ones originally effected.
I was wondering if they changed hosts or the route simply changed, or maybe it wasn't effected but just happened to be down yesterday which isn't a likely coincidence. | |
|
| TMBackstrom
join:2002-11-23
Broomfield, CO | Re: Does anyone know what Drudgereport did? I'm getting Drudge Report through LEVEL3.NET, SVWH.NET, then CENTRALHOST.COM . I had no problem hitting them yesterday. But yesterday Photobucket wouldn't come up, and they are on a Cogent network. | |
|
rr-user-5483
@rr.com | RR in Texas Working Road Runner in Texas (San Antonio) seems to be working now. Connections look like they're going thru ATDN.NET instead of Level 3 now. | |
|
| TMBackstrom
join:2002-11-23
Broomfield, CO | Re: RR in Texas Working Try doing a trace route on yahoo.com . You should hit Level 3 then. | |
|
anon7676
@mindspring.com
| tampa bay RR working now RR out of N tampa bay is now working. I have used addr.com for several years and was unable to connect to them the last 2 days. I see that cogent and level3 are still at war, so either addr or RR is making this connection work, and I thank them for that. I was wondering how I can find out which one did the fix, as I will probably dump the others services. After doing a trace to addr.com it looks like they are still using cogent, so they just sat on their ass and waited, while RR probably rerouted the connection? Is this the case, and should I dump addr.com?
4 10 ms 8 ms 10 ms pos6-0-OC-192.tampflerl-rtr3.tampabay.rr.com [65
.32.8.133]
5 9 ms 9 ms 14 ms pop1-tby-P0-1.atdn.net [66.185.136.169]
6 13 ms 10 ms 9 ms bb2-tby-P0-0.atdn.net [66.185.136.162]
7 25 ms 25 ms 31 ms bb1-atm-P2-0.atdn.net [66.185.152.186]
8 29 ms 29 ms 30 ms bb1-cha-P6-0.atdn.net [66.185.152.183]
9 29 ms 31 ms 30 ms bb2-cha-P1-0.atdn.net [66.185.152.135]
10 39 ms 40 ms 39 ms bb2-ash-P13-0.atdn.net [66.185.152.50]
11 41 ms 39 ms 39 ms pop3-ash-P1-0.atdn.net [66.185.148.211]
12 40 ms 43 ms 39 ms Verio.atdn.net [66.185.140.242]
13 69 ms 69 ms 68 ms p6-3.core01.iad01.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.12.
21]
14 69 ms 68 ms 66 ms p11-0.core01.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.2.
201]
15 72 ms 68 ms 67 ms p4-0.core01.phl01.atlas.cogentco.com [66.28.4.18
]
16 70 ms 68 ms 66 ms p5-0.core02.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com [66.28.4.1]
17 108 ms 113 ms 109 ms p12-0.core01.mci01.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.3.
202]
18 101 ms 99 ms 98 ms p10-0.core02.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com [66.28.4.2
09]
19 99 ms 99 ms 99 ms p15-0.core01.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com [66.28.4.6
9]
20 99 ms 97 ms 98 ms p4-0.core01.sjc01.atlas.cogentco.com [66.28.4.94
]
21 109 ms 99 ms 99 ms g0-4.na22.b001848-1.sjc01.atlas.cogentco.com [38
.112.37.118]
22 99 ms 99 ms 98 ms ADDR_com_Inc.dmarc.cogentco.com [38.112.241.82]
23 99 ms 100 ms 98 ms addr2.addr.com [38.113.244.252]
Trace complete. | |
|
| gamepro100
join:2004-07-27
Brooklyn, NY | Re: tampa bay RR working now NYC RR is back up, my friend tells me he can access drudgereport.com | |
|
Neurobit
join:2004-12-08
Houston, TX | Yup, they're back up.
NB | |
|
|
|
|
Bad news
SBC customers
Boycott
