The most interesting part of the press release to me is:
In the over 1300 on-net locations worldwide where Cogent provides service, Cogent is offering every Sprint-Nextel wireline customer that is unable to connect to Cogent's customers a free 100 megabit per second connection to the Internet for as long as Sprint continues to keep this partitioning of the Internet in place. Unfortunately, there is no way that Cogent can do the same for the wireless customers of Sprint-Nextel.
This wasn't the first time Cogent offered something similar. They did the same thing when Level3 depeered them.
And they'll do it to others in future peering spats. It's just a bullying tactic - entertaining if you're on the sideline; irritating if you're Sprint. Cogent reminds me of Ethan Coen's poem, which starts: The loudest has the final say, The wanton win, the rash hold sway, The realist's rules of order say The drunken driver has the right of way. Nick
Nick Hilliard wrote:
And they'll do it to others in future peering spats. It's just a bullying tactic - entertaining if you're on the sideline; irritating if you're Sprint.
Cogent reminds me of Ethan Coen's poem, which starts:
The loudest has the final say, The wanton win, the rash hold sway, The realist's rules of order say The drunken driver has the right of way.
So why do SPs keep depeering Cogent? Serious question, why? I'm not aware of any Intercage-like issues with them. I've actually considered them as a potential upstream when we expand into a market they serve. Justin
Best guess would be traffic ratio related - that always seems to be related to de-peering. One side doesn't like the amount of traffic coming in versus going out etc... Paul -----Original Message----- From: Justin Shore [mailto:justin@justinshore.com] Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 9:03 AM To: Nick Hilliard Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Sprint / Cogent Nick Hilliard wrote:
And they'll do it to others in future peering spats. It's just a bullying tactic - entertaining if you're on the sideline; irritating if you're Sprint.
Cogent reminds me of Ethan Coen's poem, which starts:
The loudest has the final say, The wanton win, the rash hold sway, The realist's rules of order say The drunken driver has the right of way.
So why do SPs keep depeering Cogent? Serious question, why? I'm not aware of any Intercage-like issues with them. I've actually considered them as a potential upstream when we expand into a market they serve. Justin ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and contains confidential and/or privileged material. If you received this in error, please contact the sender immediately and then destroy this transmission, including all attachments, without copying, distributing or disclosing same. Thank you."
So why do SPs keep depeering Cogent? Serious question, why? I'm not aware of any Intercage-like issues with them. I've actually considered them as a potential upstream when we expand into a market they serve.
Because some SP's still have a sour taste in their mouth about what Cogent did to the marketplace when they started. If you recall, they were the most disturbing force in the transit wars (not to be confused with the cola or fast-food wars), when they came out with $3,000 fast-Ethernets, and everyone else was enjoying $100+/meg. In my opinion, this was the free market at work, and look -- the market as continued to thrive with plenty of competition. Not being a customer of either of these guys, I could care less about this. While Sprint most certainly has their reasons, I think generally speaking people care less about this sort of thing these days. 1239 is certainly not the force that they used to be, and they should realize it and stop being stupid. Why do I say stupid? Because, if companies like Sprint continue to do things like what Sprint is doing, this will certainly lead to being noticed by legislators, and the next thing we know we will have federally regulated peering or backbone network operating. I can see it now, the Bureau of Peering will be part of the Federal Networking Committee. Does anyone want that? I certainly don't. Again, not because it would overly affect me, it's just more regulation which we don't need. I'll crawl back under my rock now.
Alex Rubenstein wrote:
Why do I say stupid?
Because, if companies like Sprint continue to do things like what Sprint is doing, this will certainly lead to being noticed by legislators, and the next thing we know we will have federally regulated peering or backbone network operating. I can see it now, the Bureau of Peering will be part of the Federal Networking Committee.
I think you are wrong to the extent that BOP will be under the Department Of Fairness.
On Oct 31, 2008, at 9:52 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
Alex Rubenstein wrote:
Why do I say stupid? Because, if companies like Sprint continue to do things like what Sprint is doing, this will certainly lead to being noticed by legislators, and the next thing we know we will have federally regulated peering or backbone network operating. I can see it now, the Bureau of Peering will be part of the Federal Networking Committee.
I think you are wrong to the extent that BOP will be under the Department Of Fairness.
the two likely entities in the United States would be either the FCC or DHS. (DHS you say?) The NCS lives under DHS. I wonder if sprint reported the "outage" to the FCC yet, or what answer you would get from calling the NCS or NCC watch. - Jared
On Oct 31, 2008, at 10:12 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Oct 31, 2008, at 9:52 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
Alex Rubenstein wrote:
Why do I say stupid? Because, if companies like Sprint continue to do things like what Sprint is doing, this will certainly lead to being noticed by legislators, and the next thing we know we will have federally regulated peering or backbone network operating. I can see it now, the Bureau of Peering will be part of the Federal Networking Committee.
I think you are wrong to the extent that BOP will be under the Department Of Fairness.
the two likely entities in the United States would be either the FCC or DHS.
(DHS you say?) The NCS lives under DHS. I wonder if sprint reported the "outage" to the FCC yet, or what answer you would get from calling the NCS or NCC watch.
Maybe they can bring it up at the November 4th FCC open meeting : http://www.publish.com/c/a/Mobile/FCC-to-Consider-SprintClearwire-Merger/ http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-286069A1.pdf From the tentative agenda : A Memorandum Opinion and Order addressing the applications filed by Sprint Nextel and Clearwire for approval of the transfer ofcontrol of licenses, authorizations and leasing arrangements held by Sprint Nextel and its subsidiaries to New Clearwire. Regards Marshall
- Jared
On Oct 31, 2008, at 10:33 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Maybe they can bring it up at the November 4th FCC open meeting :
[snip] While I agree regulation is a possible outcome, I am always amazed at the US gov't self-delusion that they can somehow regulate something like the Internet. End of day, regulation will just make things more difficult, it will not actually change the way networks make decisions. But we all knew that. -- TTFN, patrick
Sent from my iPhone On 31 okt 2008, at 19.05, "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net> wrote:
On Oct 31, 2008, at 10:33 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Maybe they can bring it up at the November 4th FCC open meeting :
[snip]
While I agree regulation is a possible outcome, I am always amazed at the US gov't self-delusion that they can somehow regulate something like the Internet.
End of day, regulation will just make things more difficult, it will not actually change the way networks make decisions.
But we all knew that.
If the eu attempt at regulating last mile copper acces prices is to serve as example I doubt regulation of interconnects will be for the better... - kurtis -
So why do SPs keep depeering Cogent? Serious question, why? I'm not aware of any Intercage-like issues with them. I've actually considered them as a potential upstream when we expand into a market they serve.
Because some SP's still have a sour taste in their mouth about what Cogent did to the marketplace when they started. If you recall, they were the most disturbing force in the transit wars (not to be confused with the cola or fast-food wars), when they came out with $3,000 fast-Ethernets, and everyone else was enjoying $100+/meg. In my opinion, this was the free market at work, and look -- the market as continued to thrive with plenty of competition.
Not being a customer of either of these guys, I could care less about this. While Sprint most certainly has their reasons, I think generally speaking
I would have to agree with Alex that if behavior like this doesn't stop that the Fed would get involved(regardless of which party is in office). Is this type of behavior called 'peer pressure', maybe there are care groups to help these victims. Overall... it is one thing if Sprint and Cogent get into a shouting match, it would be a whole other ballpark if say AT&T, Qwest, Verizon or Time Warner de-peered. ---------------------- Brian Raaen Network Engineer braaen@zcorum.com On Friday 31 October 2008, Alex Rubenstein wrote: people care less about this sort of thing these days. 1239 is certainly not the force that they used to be, and they should realize it and stop being stupid.
Why do I say stupid?
Because, if companies like Sprint continue to do things like what Sprint is
doing, this will certainly lead to being noticed by legislators, and the next thing we know we will have federally regulated peering or backbone network operating. I can see it now, the Bureau of Peering will be part of the Federal Networking Committee.
Does anyone want that? I certainly don't. Again, not because it would overly
affect me, it's just more regulation which we don't need.
I'll crawl back under my rock now.
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Alex Rubenstein <alex@corp.nac.net> wrote:
Why do I say stupid?
Because, if companies like Sprint continue to do things like what Sprint is doing, this will certainly lead to being noticed by legislators, and the next thing we know we will have federally regulated peering or backbone network operating. I can see it now, the Bureau of Peering will be part of the Federal Networking Committee.
This is different than the 3yr hold on peering changes imposed on UUNET/MCI when they merged with Verizon (were borged by verizon) or the same hold imposed on ATT when the SBC/ATT merger went down? -chris
This wasn't the first time Cogent offered something similar. They did the same thing when Level3 depeered them.
And they'll do it to others in future peering spats. It's just a bullying tactic - entertaining if you're on the sideline; irritating if you're Sprint.
It is certainly not "just" a bullying tactic. It may be "A" bullying tactic, I won't even attempt to guess at the intent, but the tactic also has the very real side effect of re-establishing full connectivity to Sprint-connected sites that lose it. Given that other very significant result of the tactic, it is clearly not "just a bullying tactic." ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
On 31/10/2008 13:23, Joe Greco wrote:
It is certainly not "just" a bullying tactic. It may be "A" bullying tactic, I won't even attempt to guess at the intent, but the tactic also has the very real side effect of re-establishing full connectivity to Sprint-connected sites that lose it.
you-re right - it's a bullying tactic, not "just a". Apart from the sales and publicity stunt value, it will put a certain amount of pressure on Sprint to actually do something about the problem rather than sit back, ignore it and hope it goes away. Nick
If you haven't already seen it, the great Todd Underwood of Renesys published an article today on his blog regarding this subject: http://www.renesys.com/blog/2008/10/wrestling-with-the-zombie-spri.shtml An aside, WV Fiber (AS19151) is currently partitioned from Cogent since AS19151 only contracts with Sprint for transit and is settlement-free with the rest of its peers. As previously reported, late last year, Cogent depeered AS19151 for unknown reasons. Up until yesterday, this wasn't much of a problem. Now unfortunately, the two networks (AS19151 and AS174) are partitioned. Any single homed WV Fiber customer and any single homed Cogent customer can not reach each other. WV Fiber hosts over 7 million eyeballs and many networks under its AS. We hope Sprint and Cogent work out their differences, but in the mean time, we unfortunately will remain partitioned from Cogent. Regards, Randy Epstein President WV Fiber
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 01:20:23PM -0400, Randy Epstein wrote:
We hope Sprint and Cogent work out their differences, but in the mean time, we unfortunately will remain partitioned from Cogent.
Randy, This brings up something I've always wondered. Why do we have public depeerings, rather than public deprefings? You'd think both sides could at least agree to set localpref to 1, and not send each other anything that they don't absolutely have to until they resolve their issues. Bypass them if at all possible, but don't partition the interwebs. Or am I dreaming of ponies again? --msa
On Oct 31, 2008, at 1:44 PM, Majdi S. Abbas wrote:
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 01:20:23PM -0400, Randy Epstein wrote:
We hope Sprint and Cogent work out their differences, but in the mean time, we unfortunately will remain partitioned from Cogent.
Randy,
This brings up something I've always wondered. Why do we have public depeerings, rather than public deprefings? You'd think both sides could at least agree to set localpref to 1, and not send each other anything that they don't absolutely have to until they resolve their issues. Bypass them if at all possible, but don't partition the interwebs.
Or am I dreaming of ponies again?
Dreaming. If Sprint is upset that Cogent is sending Sprint much more traffic than Sprint is sending Cogent, how does Sprint sending Cogent even less traffic (and making the ratio even worse) help Sprint? Why would Cogent care? -- TTFN, patrick
At 01:20 PM 10/31/2008, Randy Epstein wrote:
If you haven't already seen it, the great Todd Underwood of Renesys published an article today on his blog regarding this subject:
http://www.renesys.com/blog/2008/10/wrestling-with-the-zombie-spri.shtml
Just read through Todd's blog posting. Since I'm travelling at the moment with a Sprint EVDO card as my connectivity, I now understand why some sites have not been working. I assume my Sprint phone SMS service is also impacted, insofar as any text-to/from-email will not work to sites on the affected networks either. The micro-browser in my phone will have been affected too, though it's too useless to really use anyway. If I can find a way to fax the corporate offices of Sprint on Monday, I'll ask them for a refund on my service charges for the month, since they're now selling me access to only part of the Internet from my mobile devices. Funny, I'd just checked a few days ago to see if my mobile devices are beyond any term commitment. Since they are, I will now look at changing to another wireless carrier at the next reasonable opportunity. Did Sprint think about the fact that their decision would actually impact their wireless customers? I'm sure my business's wireless devices won't make or break Sprint's profits, but wonder if larger businesses using EVDO might also raise concern? Is Sprint now lying about selling "Unlimited Internet Access from anywhere" when peddling their data cards? Is Sony, as well, by inclusion of EVDO cards within their notebook computers? I presume their actuarial staff ran the numbers and decided the risk was worth it, and that's what they'll tell their stock holders.
On Nov 1, 2008, at 11:37 AM, Daniel Senie wrote:
At 01:20 PM 10/31/2008, Randy Epstein wrote:
If you haven't already seen it, the great Todd Underwood of Renesys published an article today on his blog regarding this subject:
http://www.renesys.com/blog/2008/10/wrestling-with-the-zombie-spri.shtml
Just read through Todd's blog posting. Since I'm travelling at the moment with a Sprint EVDO card as my connectivity, I now understand why some sites have not been working. I assume my Sprint phone SMS service is also impacted, insofar as any text-to/from-email will not work to sites on the affected networks either. The micro-browser in my phone will have been affected too, though it's too useless to really use anyway.
If I can find a way to fax the corporate offices of Sprint on Monday, I'll ask them for a refund on my service charges for the month, since they're now selling me access to only part of the Internet from my mobile devices.
I have had occasion to dispute a Sprint charge. To do that, send a physical letter to Sprint Correspondence Customer Disputes PO 15955 Shawnee Mission, Kansas 66285 (This is for "residential" not business accounts.) Regards Marshall
Funny, I'd just checked a few days ago to see if my mobile devices are beyond any term commitment. Since they are, I will now look at changing to another wireless carrier at the next reasonable opportunity.
Did Sprint think about the fact that their decision would actually impact their wireless customers? I'm sure my business's wireless devices won't make or break Sprint's profits, but wonder if larger businesses using EVDO might also raise concern? Is Sprint now lying about selling "Unlimited Internet Access from anywhere" when peddling their data cards? Is Sony, as well, by inclusion of EVDO cards within their notebook computers? I presume their actuarial staff ran the numbers and decided the risk was worth it, and that's what they'll tell their stock holders.
On Oct 31, 2008, at 7:47 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
The most interesting part of the press release to me is:
In the over 1300 on-net locations worldwide where Cogent provides service, Cogent is offering every Sprint-Nextel wireline customer that is unable to connect to Cogent's customers a free 100 megabit per second connection to the Internet for as long as Sprint continues to keep this partitioning of the Internet in place. Unfortunately, there is no way that Cogent can do the same for the wireless customers of Sprint-Nextel.
This wasn't the first time Cogent offered something similar. They did the same thing when Level3 depeered them.
And they'll do it to others in future peering spats. It's just a bullying tactic - entertaining if you're on the sideline; irritating if you're Sprint.
I would regard this as a good sales tactic. I don't see bullying. Regards Marshall
Cogent reminds me of Ethan Coen's poem, which starts:
The loudest has the final say, The wanton win, the rash hold sway, The realist's rules of order say The drunken driver has the right of way.
Nick
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008, Nick Hilliard wrote:
This wasn't the first time Cogent offered something similar. They did the same thing when Level3 depeered them.
And they'll do it to others in future peering spats. It's just a bullying tactic - entertaining if you're on the sideline; irritating if you're Sprint.
It seems to me, it's a rather empty offer though. How many Sprint customers affected by the Sprint/Cogent depeering are actually in facilities where they can get that free Cogent connection without paying for expensive backhaul to reach Cogent and already have an ASN, BGP capable router(s), and globally routable CIDRS so they can access both the Sprint and Cogent views of the internet? Does anyone know how many Level3 customers Cogent actually hooked up when Level3 and Cogent stopped peering? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
jlewis@lewis.org (Jon Lewis) wrote:
It seems to me, it's a rather empty offer though. How many Sprint customers affected by the Sprint/Cogent depeering are actually in facilities where they can get that free Cogent connection without paying for expensive backhaul to reach Cogent and already have an ASN, BGP capable router(s), and globally routable CIDRS so they can access both the Sprint and Cogent views of the internet?
The profitable ones. El "ask something complicated" mar.
participants (17)
-
Alex Rubenstein -
Brian Raaen -
Christopher Morrow -
Daniel Senie -
Elmar K. Bins -
Jared Mauch -
Joe Greco -
Jon Lewis -
Justin Shore -
Kurt Erik Lindqvist -
Larry Sheldon -
Majdi S. Abbas -
Marshall Eubanks -
Nick Hilliard -
Patrick W. Gilmore -
Paul Stewart -
Randy Epstein