i think the cogent depeering thing is a myth of some kind
at <http://www.e-gerbil.net/cogent-t1r> there is a plain text document with the following HTTP headers: Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:56:34 GMT Server: Apache/2.2.3 (Unix) PHP/5.2.3 Last-Modified: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:15:53 GMT ETag: "92c1e1-a85-43b36ea5bcc40" Content-Length: 2693 Content-Type: text/plain the plain text title is: Cogent shows hypocrisy with de-peering policy the plain text authorship is ascribed to: Dan Golding the first plain text assertion that caught my eye was: Cogent, has, in fact, de-peered other Internet networks in the last 24 hours, including content-delivery network Limelight Networks and wholesale transit provider nLayer Communications, along with several European networks. since i appear to be reaching the aforementioned web server by a path that includes cogent-to-nlayer, i think this part of the plain text is inaccurate. traceroute to www.e-gerbil.net (69.31.1.2), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets 1 rc-main.f1.sql1.isc.org (204.152.187.254) 0.336 ms 2 149.20.48.65 (149.20.48.65) 0.509 ms 3 gig-0-1-0-606.r2.sfo2.isc.org (149.20.65.3) 1.163 ms 4 g0-8.core02.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.11.177) 2.757 ms 5 t4-2.mpd01.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.2.89) 2.958 ms 6 g3-0-0.core02.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.3.117) 2.525 ms 7 p6-0.core01.sjc04.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.234) 4.183 ms 8 g3-3.ar1.pao1.us.nlayer.net (69.22.153.21) 2.637 ms 9 ge-2-1-1.cr1.sfo1.us.nlayer.net (69.22.143.161) 3.806 ms 10 so-0-2-0.cr1.ord1.us.nlayer.net (69.22.142.77) 69.022 ms 11 60.po1.ar1.ord1.us.nlayer.net (69.31.111.130) 69.491 ms 12 0.tge4-4.ar1.iad1.us.nlayer.net (69.22.142.113) 81.580 ms ... the second plain text assertion which caught my eye was: Why is this happening? There are a few possibilities. First, Cogent may simply want revenue from the networks it has de-peered, in the form of Internet transit. Of course, few de-peered networks are willing to fork over cash to those that have rejected them. Another possibility is that Cogent is seeing threats from other peers regarding its heavy outbound ratios, and it seeks to disconnect Limelight and other content-heavy peers to help balance those ratios out. this makes no sense, since dan golding would know that cogent's other peers would not be seeing traffic via cogent from the allegedly de-peered peers. so, i think the document is a hoax of some kind. (i saw it mentioned here.)
at <http://www.e-gerbil.net/cogent-t1r> there is a plain text document with the following HTTP headers:
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:56:34 GMT Server: Apache/2.2.3 (Unix) PHP/5.2.3 Last-Modified: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:15:53 GMT ETag: "92c1e1-a85-43b36ea5bcc40" Content-Length: 2693 Content-Type: text/plain
the plain text title is:
Cogent shows hypocrisy with de-peering policy
the plain text authorship is ascribed to:
Dan Golding
Clearly you can see the article was published by T1R in their Daily T1R report: http://www.t1r.com/ (listed under "The Daily T1R Headlines") If you subscribe to the Daily T1R, you can find Dan's report issued today.
since i appear to be reaching the aforementioned web server by a path that includes cogent-to-nlayer, i think this part of the plain text is inaccurate.
I think Dan overstepped here. Richard has made comments of a de-peering notice received by nLayer, not an actual de-peering occurrence. AFAIK, the only two networks in recent weeks that have been de-peered are WV Fiber and LimeLight. WV was de-peered a couple on September 17th and LimeLight was de-peered yesterday. Randy
"Randy Epstein" <repstein@chello.at> wrote:
Clearly you can see the article was published by T1R in their Daily T1R report: http://www.t1r.com/
(listed under "The Daily T1R Headlines")
If you subscribe to the Daily T1R, you can find Dan's report issued today.
"Sorry, T1R.com requires Flash 8 or above: Get Flash"
I think Dan overstepped here. Richard has made comments of a de-peering notice received by nLayer, not an actual de-peering occurrence.
ok.
AFAIK, the only two networks in recent weeks that have been de-peered are WV Fiber and LimeLight. WV was de-peered a couple on September 17th and LimeLight was de-peered yesterday.
it's still really hard to believe that dan golding, of all people, could have written text that makes it seem as though traffic from one set of cogent's peers would be seen as input from cogent by another set of cogent's peers. i'll take your word for it, since you've got "Flash 8 or above", and i havn't. are any of the de-peering letters online someplace?
I don't know that NLayer was depeered yesteray for a fact, although someone I trust did report that to me. I do know for a fact that Limelight was. No offense to the good folk at nLayer, but most of the people who I work for care a good bit more about Limelight Didn't know about VW Fiber. Sorry, Randy - didn't mean to leave you guys out :) - Dan On Sep 28, 2007, at 7:24 PM, Randy Epstein wrote:
I think Dan overstepped here. Richard has made comments of a de- peering notice received by nLayer, not an actual de-peering occurrence.
AFAIK, the only two networks in recent weeks that have been de- peered are WV Fiber and LimeLight. WV was de-peered a couple on September 17th and LimeLight was de-peered yesterday.
Randy
On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 10:00:41PM +0000, Paul Vixie wrote: [snip]
the second plain text assertion which caught my eye was:
Why is this happening? There are a few possibilities. First, Cogent may simply want revenue from the networks it has de-peered, in the form of Internet transit. Of course, few de-peered networks are willing to fork over cash to those that have rejected them. Another possibility is that Cogent is seeing threats from other peers regarding its heavy outbound ratios, and it seeks to disconnect Limelight and other content-heavy peers to help balance those ratios out.
this makes no sense, since dan golding would know that cogent's other peers would not be seeing traffic via cogent from the allegedly de-peered peers.
The question makes no sense, since paul vixie would know that traffic pushed away has to go somewhere. Specifically traffic formerly taking the path (content net)->cogent would take (content net)->(othernets)->cogent. Given sufficent traffic analysis, one could determine some sets of (content net) entities which would *likely* deliver a known-to-cogent quantitiy of traffic over the complaining (othernets). Depending what the silly ratio gobbledegook was the basis for complaints, and how much existing (content customer)->cogent->(othernets) needs to be 'balanced', the complaining (othernets) might just be inviting their own complaints to be turned back on themselves... -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
Paul, This is the scenario. Peer B is send lots of outbound to Peer A. Peer A depeers Peer (well former Peer) B. Why? Well, Peer A is having ratio problems with other Peers C-F. Keep reading... After depeering, some of (now former) Peer B's outbound traffic to Peer A will now flow over links from Peer B to Peers C-F, before finally terminating at Peer A. Peer A sees their ratios with Peers C- F improve. This is a proven maneuver and Cogent is not the first to do it. Of course, it gets more complex with multihoming and the assumptions of a meshy enough connectivity to ensure this will happen. This is better explained with a whiteboard. That full explanation was missing from the writeup that is posted (and I'll allow it to stay up for now), because that report was aimed at folks who may not be fully conversant in peering - financial professionals. BTW, thanks for dropping me an email to ask me about it, before posted to NANOG. As far as reachability from one provider to another - I've heard that one can make routing changes quickly and easily on this crazy Internet thing. Perhaps in the 24 hours since I wrote that, a few changes occurred? Dan On Sep 28, 2007, at 6:00 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
at <http://www.e-gerbil.net/cogent-t1r> there is a plain text document with the following HTTP headers:
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:56:34 GMT Server: Apache/2.2.3 (Unix) PHP/5.2.3 Last-Modified: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:15:53 GMT ETag: "92c1e1-a85-43b36ea5bcc40" Content-Length: 2693 Content-Type: text/plain
the plain text title is:
Cogent shows hypocrisy with de-peering policy
the plain text authorship is ascribed to:
Dan Golding
the first plain text assertion that caught my eye was:
Cogent, has, in fact, de-peered other Internet networks in the last 24 hours, including content-delivery network Limelight Networks and wholesale transit provider nLayer Communications, along with several European networks.
since i appear to be reaching the aforementioned web server by a path that includes cogent-to-nlayer, i think this part of the plain text is inaccurate.
traceroute to www.e-gerbil.net (69.31.1.2), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets 1 rc-main.f1.sql1.isc.org (204.152.187.254) 0.336 ms 2 149.20.48.65 (149.20.48.65) 0.509 ms 3 gig-0-1-0-606.r2.sfo2.isc.org (149.20.65.3) 1.163 ms 4 g0-8.core02.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.11.177) 2.757 ms 5 t4-2.mpd01.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.2.89) 2.958 ms 6 g3-0-0.core02.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.3.117) 2.525 ms 7 p6-0.core01.sjc04.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.234) 4.183 ms 8 g3-3.ar1.pao1.us.nlayer.net (69.22.153.21) 2.637 ms 9 ge-2-1-1.cr1.sfo1.us.nlayer.net (69.22.143.161) 3.806 ms 10 so-0-2-0.cr1.ord1.us.nlayer.net (69.22.142.77) 69.022 ms 11 60.po1.ar1.ord1.us.nlayer.net (69.31.111.130) 69.491 ms 12 0.tge4-4.ar1.iad1.us.nlayer.net (69.22.142.113) 81.580 ms ...
the second plain text assertion which caught my eye was:
Why is this happening? There are a few possibilities. First, Cogent may simply want revenue from the networks it has de-peered, in the form of Internet transit. Of course, few de-peered networks are willing to fork over cash to those that have rejected them. Another possibility is that Cogent is seeing threats from other peers regarding its heavy outbound ratios, and it seeks to disconnect Limelight and other content-heavy peers to help balance those ratios out.
this makes no sense, since dan golding would know that cogent's other peers would not be seeing traffic via cogent from the allegedly de-peered peers.
so, i think the document is a hoax of some kind. (i saw it mentioned here.)
This is a proven maneuver and Cogent is not the first to do it.
i guess that without knowing who else these de-peered networks are customers of, it's hard for an outsider to guess which ratios into cogent's network by other peers will improve as a result of de-peering these networks. had you been writing for a technical audience i'm sure you would have alluded to this, i'm sure. now that i know the article was a leak rather than a publication, it all becomes clear.
... That full explanation was missing from the writeup that is posted (and I'll allow it to stay up for now), because that report was aimed at folks who may not be fully conversant in peering - financial professionals. BTW, thanks for dropping me an email to ask me about it, before posted to NANOG.
the text i saw was so uncharacteristically non-dan-golding, that i really did think it was a hoax. you're right that i should have asked you about it; in my defense i was leaving for the weekend and didn't have as much time as this should've gotten.
As far as reachability from one provider to another - I've heard that one can make routing changes quickly and easily on this crazy Internet thing. Perhaps in the 24 hours since I wrote that, a few changes occurred?
i'm a cogent customer, and my path to nlayer at the moment i read your note still went through cogent. what was i to think? anyway, problem solved.
participants (4)
-
Daniel Golding -
Joe Provo -
Paul Vixie -
Randy Epstein