×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Sprint Cuts Cogent Off the Internet

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the is-that-an-ectomy-or-an-otomy? dept.

The Internet 413

superbus1929 writes "I work as a security analyst at an internet security company. While troubleshooting an issue, we learned why our customer couldn't keep his site-to-site VPN going from any location that uses Sprint as its ISP: Sprint has decided not to route traffic to Cogent due to litigation. This has a chilling effect; already, this person I worked with cannot communicate between a few sites of his, and since Sprint is stopping the connections cold (my traceroutes showed as complete, and not as timing out), it means that there is no backup plan; anyone going to Cogent from a Sprint ISP is crap out of luck."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

413 comments

Ah... that explains it (5, Interesting)

djcapelis (587616) | more than 5 years ago | (#25579893)

Heh, I was wondering why scoreboard showed they were having issues:
http://scoreboard.keynote.com/scoreboard/Main.aspx [keynote.com]

*sigh*

So it wasn't just an outage.

Re:Ah... that explains it (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25580505)

That is a login page, you means to use this links:

http://internetpulse.net/

Re:Ah... that explains it (5, Informative)

djcapelis (587616) | more than 5 years ago | (#25580513)

Oh, right, sorry about that. Put "public" in for both the username and password.

Oh, good. (5, Insightful)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 5 years ago | (#25579895)

I'd been considering cancelling my laptop's EVDO service with Sprint for a while now (it's a little pricey and I don't really need it). This will be a great excuse to tell them when I call them up. :)

Re:Oh, good. (1)

steeleye_brad (638310) | more than 5 years ago | (#25579927)

Except that this story's issue pertains to Sprint's ISP operations, you're talking about their wireless offerings. Same company, different divisions.

Re:Oh, good. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25579979)

except that wireless customers cant get to cogent either.

Re:Oh, good. (4, Insightful)

Hes Nikke (237581) | more than 5 years ago | (#25579985)

so the excuse to not boycot sprint is that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing? fuck that, i'm boycotting sprint as an entire company.

Re:Oh, good. (5, Insightful)

nyu2 (1263642) | more than 5 years ago | (#25580011)

Agree. When a company builds up a brand, then puts lots of things under that brand, they do it so that you'll carry over goodwill from one product to the next. It seems only fair to carry over the badwill as well.

Re:Oh, good. (3, Informative)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 5 years ago | (#25580005)

TFA could theoretically maybe perhaps be full of lies, but it specifically refers to Sprint's wireless services (which are no doubt serviced by the rest of their Internet service).

Besides, I'm trying it right now and can't get to cogentco.com (though I can do just fine on my home broadband connection).

Re:Oh, good. (5, Interesting)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 5 years ago | (#25580099)

Our company buys quite a bit of transit from Cogent, and Sprint's looking glass sites are showing a complete partition between the two. Also, Cogent has offered free 100Mbit connectivity to any on-net Sprint customers until the issue is resolved.

Re:Oh, good. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25580113)

No, I'm just going to tell them, I don't do business with dicks, and what you did was a dick move.

Re:Oh, good. (4, Informative)

Glendale2x (210533) | more than 5 years ago | (#25580811)

Don't be so quick to blame Sprint, especially since that's a Cogent PR release. They (Cogent) had fights with Level3 and AOL as well that had the same result: Customers of Sprint/Level3/AOL were cut off from Cogent.

So what is Sprint providing its customers? (4, Insightful)

bizitch (546406) | more than 5 years ago | (#25579911)

If I'm a Sprint customer - I'd be calling Sprint right now and ask

"What the hell am I buying from you every month?
I thought I was buying a DIA circuit - as in Direct Internet Access - but apparently you don't exactly do that. That's a breach of contract - that's a violation of your SLA - I want out of my contract now .... etc etc "

Am I nuts here? It's either the freaking internet or it isn't - WTF?

Re:So what is Sprint providing its customers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25579983)

you're nuts.

"internet" is a very vague term. what networks does it come with?

you don't have access to my network or any of the machines in my network (except for one public one). does that mean you're not getting the full internet?

Re:So what is Sprint providing its customers? (1)

ustolemyname (1301665) | more than 5 years ago | (#25580017)

Those machines are not on the internet, they connect to the internet.

Re:So what is Sprint providing its customers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25580067)

that could be the same for cogent's customers, if everyone depeered them.

let's change the example.
that's like me peering with Teleglobe and ONLY teleglobe. to teleglobe's customers, it seems like i'm the internet :)
but if you're on verizon, you can't access it. then me telling you to complain to Verizon because you can't access my website :)

Re:So what is Sprint providing its customers? (4, Informative)

blhack (921171) | more than 5 years ago | (#25580091)

Those machines are not on the internet, they connect to the internet.

Probably(hopefully) a troll, but I'll bite.

There is no "internet". There is only progressively smaller networks. The ISPs all own their own networks, they communicate with one another via an IBX, or a "meet-me-room". Your company's LAN is a network just like theirs, only smaller (well...depending on what company you work for..some can get to the size of a small ISP). The fact that you don't have an agreement with your ISP to route their traffic to your machines does not mean that they are not part of "the internet".

Think about it like this:

There is an office building, each floor is a separate company. Each company runs their own network. After a while, a couple of the companies decide that they should share information with one another, so they do. They connect their networks to one another and start routing between them. Things are good. Now a few more companies jump on board, before you know it, 40 out of the 50 networks in the building are all talking to one another. THAT is the internet.

Re:So what is Sprint providing its customers? (1)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 5 years ago | (#25580169)

I think he's talking in a more general sense. But you are correct in that definition of the term!

Re:So what is Sprint providing its customers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25580765)

But where are the tubes? And what happens when they fill up?

Re:So what is Sprint providing its customers? (5, Funny)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 5 years ago | (#25580805)

Can you write it again as a car analogy? I'm lost here.

Re:So what is Sprint providing its customers? (4, Insightful)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 5 years ago | (#25580257)

No, you are NUTS!
Customers have a reasonable expectation of what services they are buying. If there is fine print or bait and switch tactics involved, or blatant disregard for service contract terms, there is legal reason to sue. In the USA we have lemon laws for cars and the same intent applies to everything in commercial business under the general terms of the law. Blatant theft of funds under the guise of contractual terms does not count. It may take time to prove it in court, but what I'm saying is true. Internet is NOT a vague term. Internet means what you get at your home PC screen. "Limited Internet" means something different. The promise of something good which is not delivered is just as wrong as snake oil salesmen that promise a cure. Obviously medical claims seem to fall under different rulings, but the intent of the law, and it's execution are the same. Fine print does not excuse you from delivering what your marketing group promised. ever.

Re:So what is Sprint providing its customers? (2, Interesting)

m0e (55482) | more than 5 years ago | (#25580191)

You'd probably want to check the SLA first. Most have provisions that don't apply to this, at least contractually. As an end-customer you'd be buying access to their public network -- if they choose to depeer or black hole another network, they're usually within the right to do that since THEY own the network you're connecting to. Bad business sense yeah, but otherwise it's probably not breaking any contractual agreement with a customer.

Re:So what is Sprint providing its customers? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25580427)

As an end-customer you'd be buying access to their public network -- if they choose to depeer or black hole another network, they're usually within the right to do that since THEY own the network you're connecting to.
I'm willing to bet that Sprint describes their offering as internet access. If that's not what they're giving, it's either fraudulent misrepresentation or outright breach of contract.

empty threats (4, Funny)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 5 years ago | (#25580201)

I thought I was buying a DIA circuit - as in Direct Internet Access - but apparently you don't exactly do that. That's a breach of contract - that's a violation of your SLA - I want out of my contract now

Sprint's reply: "Okay *flip*. Call us when you realize that getting a T1/T3 takes weeks. By the way, we charge a $1000 installation fee."

That is also a breach of contract (3, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 5 years ago | (#25580617)

You'll discover with big lines that the providers have a good level of things they have to do for you. The bigger the line, the more they are bound by. IF they pull shit like that, well it's something that can get them hit with a large suit in court. They don't get to just cut things off if they are annoyed with you.

Re:So what is Sprint providing its customers? (5, Interesting)

scoove (71173) | more than 5 years ago | (#25580203)

Funny how history repeats itself, especially in Sprint's case. In 1996, Sean Doran (SprintLink senior network architect) decided CIX-W peering was no longer cool and dropped peering, causing one hell of a black hole. From my recollection, it was the first instance where open routing was disabled due to political or commercial objectives, and unfortunately for Sprint, it came at a time where Bob Collett (then head of SprintLink) was trying to promote Sprint's openness and participation in the community. Bob overruled his engineer and routing was restored several days later.

Since that point, BGP black holes have continued, usually to the detriment of customers. BBN Planet, Exodus and numerous others played the game presuming that content was more important than eyeballs or vice versa. The fallacy in their model is that content without consumer is as useless as consumer without content. Until they establish that understanding, neither unbalanced provider will succeed.

first post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25579915)

haha

Asshats (5, Insightful)

seanadams.com (463190) | more than 5 years ago | (#25579919)

I wonder how many customers these two companies will have to lose before they realize that the right solution is to sack the lawyers.

Guess what? (5, Insightful)

caitsith01 (606117) | more than 5 years ago | (#25580215)

Lawyers don't cause litigation. Parties cause litigation.

IAAL. The matters which go to court are the ones where the parties are unreasonable, overly aggressive, or genuinely have a dispute about something which is worth money to both of them. It may also amaze you to learn that sometimes parties actually do breach contracts or otherwise fuck one another over, and yet when caught out they don't automatically roll over and return what they owe to the person they have wronged.

I have no influence whatsoever over whether they end up in Court. I advise my clients about their rights and prospects, and follow their instructions.

On the whole, reasonable, intelligent parties = no ligitation = no lawyers.

Re:Guess what? (3, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 5 years ago | (#25580373)

Actually, that (interesting) post is an excellent example of why people don't like lawyers. "It is the wish of my client." It's the whole cool, clear, collected "I will crush you and will have no bad conscience about it because I can blame someone else" attitude. Lawyers don't cause litigation? Do you know what an ambulance chaser is?

Now granted, you may not be that type of lawyer, but there is a reason the devil is sometimes portrayed as a lawyer. Take responsibility for your actions and you will become more powerful than any average lawyer. You can't always blame the other guy.

Lawyers and clients (5, Interesting)

Raul654 (453029) | more than 5 years ago | (#25580403)

Re - "It is the wish of my client." -- I'm reminded of what Richard Nixon's lawyer [wikipedia.org] famously said while arguing before the US Supreme Court in US v. Nixon [wikipedia.org]: "The President wants me to argue that he is as powerful a monarch as Louis XIV, only four years at a time, and is not subject to the processes of any court in the land except the court of impeachment." He knew it was a nutty position to take, so he explicitly stated that it was his client's position, not his.

Re:Guess what? (2, Funny)

n3tcat (664243) | more than 5 years ago | (#25580473)

I dunno... darth vader became pretty powerful by *not* taking responsibility for his actions.

Re:Guess what? (3, Insightful)

Darby (84953) | more than 5 years ago | (#25580733)

Lawyers don't cause litigation. Parties cause litigation.

Lawyers, however, enable litigation. In fact, for some lawyers, that *is* their business. You can talk in abstractions all you like, but the main difference between mathematicians and lawyers is that the mathematician's love for bizarre, pedantic arguments stays in the ivory towers. Lawyers do the same thing having massively damaging affects on the real world. Sure, some douche hired a lawyer to push some ludicrous case, and he's a douche. No argument there, but when a lawyer who's good enough at his trade argues a bullshit case convincingly that can change the way the law is applied to everyone in incredibly destructive ways. Take the mockery that's been made of the interstate commerce clause alone. Bad lawyers doing bad things that has cost the country incalculable amounts of money, integrity and damn near anything else you'd care to mention.

On the whole, reasonable, intelligent parties = no ligitation = no lawyers.

But your calculation is incomplete. Why aren't the ridiculous cases refused? Because while *you* might possess ethics, there are plenty of people who don't. Some of those people are lawyers. So even if the rest of the people were sane and decent, the sleazebag lawyers would be chasing those ambulances and working to convince the weak willed and stupid that they're owed. That's how they make a living, after all.

They also would work to arrange new ways of creating conflicts. That's just basic common sense, coupled with a society which puts profit above all and in which buying the better lawyer buys the better "justice".

Re:Guess what? (1)

Kokuyo (549451) | more than 5 years ago | (#25580799)

In my opinion, it's the judge's job to see through the big words and recognize a ludicrous case for what it is.

That's not to say that the lawyer doesn't have a lack of ethics, but the responsibility lies with the judge since he or she is the one to actually decide.

OH FUCK (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25579933)

Man, what kind of scum are our law schools churning out? Good thing the greedy Oil fucks are alerady lowing prices out of pussilanimity of the BIG, BLACK [wikipedia.org], DICK. Other price gougers, you're next, in the name of the PEOPLE!

(As an afterthought, Barry, please do reverse your decisions re: telco immunity, you damn nigga)

Here we go (2, Insightful)

nyu2 (1263642) | more than 5 years ago | (#25579953)

This could be the beginning of serious balkanization of the internet. The value of the internet is that it connects EVERYTHING. Reduce the connections, and you reduce the utility.

Something is Fishy Here (5, Interesting)

Darth Cider (320236) | more than 5 years ago | (#25579961)

Sprint-Nextel and Clearwire go before the FCC on November 4 to seek approval for a merger. It seems very fishy that this Cogent story is breaking right now. Anybody have any ideas on why Sprint might pull a stunt like this as a means to GAIN FCC approval? Or is the story originating from a competitor? Just doesn't look right, especially with the price of Sprint stock scraping bottom lately, despite the huge influx of investment from Google and others. (Billions.) Somebody please explain.

Re:Something is Fishy Here (2)

nyu2 (1263642) | more than 5 years ago | (#25579969)

Why look for hidden agendas, when simple stupidity and greed explain everything?

Re:Something is Fishy Here (1)

martinw89 (1229324) | more than 5 years ago | (#25580079)

Have you been using the same Slashdot I've been on?

Re:Something is Fishy Here (1)

jamesh (87723) | more than 5 years ago | (#25580153)

Have you been using the same Slashdot I've been on?

Maybe the Sprint/Cogent war has caused a partition in Slashdot too?

Re:Something is Fishy Here (1)

m0e (55482) | more than 5 years ago | (#25580235)

Anybody have any ideas on why Sprint might pull a stunt like this as a means to GAIN FCC approval?

They're probably not. Sprint's wireless division isn't run by the same people as their transit network. It's most likely a case of left hand not knowing what the right is doing. If Cogent and Sprint are in litigation and Sprint decides to depeer or blackhole Cogent on their network because of that, it's most likely a decision made by upper management on the data transit infrastructure side and has nothing whatsoever to do with wireless.

I can bet you that the engineers assigned to do the work of depeering/blackholing probably think it's an utterly moronic thing to do... which is why they're not in management.

Re:Something is Fishy Here (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25580417)

Uh, it has happened. It is news. Reporting it isn't a conspiracy. http://internetpulse.net/ [internetpulse.net] is displaying the connection between the two as being broken

Re:Something is Fishy Here (4, Insightful)

Glendale2x (210533) | more than 5 years ago | (#25580829)

Well, based on all the past depeering wars Cogent has been in and/or started, I'm leaning towards "Cogent is being a dick again". Especially since they're doing the exact same thing they did with Level3: offering customers of their competitor free service. The story is a press release from Cogent; it's completely one-sided. As I post this, there is no statement from Sprint.

How is this affecting others? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25579963)

I'm on Comcast and can't connect to some RCN based networks (such as my university, located in DC). Is this related? The timing seems too coincidental.

Re:How is this affecting others? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25580027)

I, too, am one of 100 slashdotters who just happen to have a problem at this very moment.

Ow My Foot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25579971)

I think it's pretty obvious that they're shooting themselves in the foot here, but I think this also begs the question: What defines internet access? Is it simply receiving an IP, or does it entail full access to the internet? Also how much disclosure do you need to give your customers as an ISP? Can you just say "Yea we offer internet access, but we wont tell you that you can only access 3 sites."

Re:Ow My Foot (3, Informative)

jimdread (1089853) | more than 5 years ago | (#25580205)

I think it's pretty obvious that they're shooting themselves in the foot here, but I think this also begs the question: What defines internet access?

No, the question is, is our children learning? Your sentence makes no sense to people who know what "begs the question" means. You seem to think it means "raises the question", but it doesn't. Begging the question is making a circular statement to support an argument. The statement relies upon itself as proof. For example, the statement "Global warming is terrible because it's really bad" is begging the question.

http://begthequestion.info/ [begthequestion.info]

Re:Ow My Foot (1, Insightful)

Xtifr (1323) | more than 5 years ago | (#25580589)

You, on the other hand, seem to think that just because there's a special meaning to "begs the question" when used without an object, that the words in that phrase lose their common everyday English meaning. Now, I'll grant you that the popularity of the somewhat awkward phrasing used by GP undoubtedly derives from the existence of the specialized meaning of the phrase in a specific context. Doesn't change the fact that the phrase obviously means exactly what he intended it to mean. Anyone who can actually read English and isn't obsessed with feeding their own ego by putting others down can see that with no problem.

Saying that common English words lose their everyday meaning when used in that particular order begs the question: why would they? Telling someone they're wrong because of your theory that these words have magically lost their ordinary meaning begs the question.

note to self (4, Insightful)

Hes Nikke (237581) | more than 5 years ago | (#25579977)

boycot sprint for fracturing the internet

Re:note to self (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25580073)

I've been a Sprint wireless customer for over 8 years now. This pretty much changes that. I'll be looking elsewhere when my contract is up. It hasn't affected me directly, but when it eventually does I'll be up shit creek. No reason to wait until then.

Of course, instances like this and worrying about peering agreements always leaves me wondering: why can't we build some kind of national government owned backbone that all telcos link in to, just so we don't have to count *entirely* on peering agreements to keep traffic going? I'm not saying government needs control of the whole internet, I'd just like a chunk of it *not* controlled by corporate interests but instead operating with the supposed intent of looking out for citizens communicating with each other. Sure would be nice, but I guess I can only dream.

Re:note to self (4, Interesting)

blhack (921171) | more than 5 years ago | (#25580145)

I think what happened in Monticello, MN with the city laying down their own fiber when TDS telcom (the local telco) refused to is definitely a step in that direction...

Affecting other ISPs (3, Informative)

miniskunk (1116621) | more than 5 years ago | (#25579999)

Well that certainly explains why my latency shot up this afternoon. Cogent or Sprint are not my ISPs, however, their squabble has affected other ISPs fair access to the net. When I do trace routes latency jumps from about 20ms to 300-500ms when it hops to a cogent address or fails to get a response. Really puts a crimp in online gaming. >.

Neutrality (5, Interesting)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 5 years ago | (#25580029)

This is what the world might look like without Net Neutrality.

Re:Neutrality (4, Informative)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 5 years ago | (#25580105)

Net neutrality can't force tier1/2 network carriers to peer.

Re:Neutrality (3, Interesting)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 5 years ago | (#25580237)

If there exists no route from me to another server on the Internet and the reason that route doesn't exist is due to my ISP, I say that ISP has violated Net Neutrality. However, since as far as I know Net Neutrality currently has no legal definition, this is purely an issue of network ethics rather than an issue of law.

Re:Neutrality (2, Funny)

Tacvek (948259) | more than 5 years ago | (#25580329)

In the spirit of Dune's "The Spice must flow!", It should be a firm rule that "The packets must route". Meaning that deliberately preventing packets from reaching their destination (excluding reasonable filtering policies) by a party other than the sender or recipient, or somebody acting on their behalf, is the worst possible Internet crime, and is in no way acceptable.

Re:Neutrality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25580507)

If routes don't currently exist between Sprint and Cogent, it probably has more to do with Cogent, despite the fact that Sprint is the one that turned off the peering session.

Cogent buys transit from others. They'd be getting routes to Sprint through their transit providers, unless they were deliberately filtering those routes. They've done that sort of filtering in the past, while playing "victim" of depeering by other networks, in order to avoid paying transit costs and to put pressure on their former peers to reconnect them.

Re:Neutrality (1)

Breakfast Pants (323698) | more than 5 years ago | (#25580347)

This isn't a case of Sprint just not peering is it? It sounds like they are blocking it entirely (e.g. even if their other peers peer through Cogent, you won't route through that peer when sprint doesn't provide a 1 hop path. e.g. Sprint is completely blackholing them). Is that a misunderstanding?

Re:Neutrality (1)

Lennie (16154) | more than 5 years ago | (#25580817)

Yes, you are misunderstanding, there are 2 ways a provider gets access to other networks, 1 is transit, the other is peering. Transit is, you (A) get all routes a provider (B) has to there network and other networks it knows about. Peering is when you just get routes about there network (provider B) and there customers networks (the customers that buy transit from B).

Transit is the kind organisations pay for, peering is usually free, but doesn't have to be.

A provider is a Tier 1, when all they have is peering and still have a connection to all the whole internet.

Sprint and Cogent are both a Tier 1 providers (Cogent only since June or July or something), thus if you have an organisation that is only connected to one transit-provider and it's one of them, you now don't have routes to the other anymore.

Organisations that buy transit should always connect to several transit-providers, Tier 1 or otherwise. Otherwise you didn't need all the extra stuff: BGP, ASN, dealing with routers, dealing with routes, etc.

Anyone organisation that is stupid enough to only connect to one Tier 1 provider is dumb, because that provider doesn't have any other peering or transit if a problem like this emerges.

The reason these problems exist, is because Cogent pretty much has the lowest prices in the industry, not just the Tier 1, but all of them.

So when you buy transit from Cogent, also buy from others. In general terms: atleast get 2 transit providers, always (unless of course you are large enough to be a Tier 1-provider). Otherwise it's like a single point of failure and you could just have gotten yourself a 'normal' internet connection.

Re:Neutrality (2, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 5 years ago | (#25580349)

This is what the world might look like without Net Neutrality.

Oh please. Doesn't the internet route around damage?

Just because there isn't a straight line between Sprint and Cogent doesn't mean the internet is fucked.
Now all you low ping bastards are high ping bastards until the two companies kiss and make up.

Now if you can explain how exactly Net Neutrality will prevent corporate pissing contests, please do.
Otherwise -1 Overrated.

Re:Neutrality (1)

m0e (55482) | more than 5 years ago | (#25580371)

Tier-1/2 transit providers have been depeering and blackholing each other since the the Internet's infancy. Sometimes over as little as a squabble between the two companys' engineers. Usually it gets resolved quickly ($$$). Sometimes it doesn't. Seems like a stupid thing to do IMO since it is doing nothing but hurting their customers.

[SprintCust] Hey, we can't get to (insert CompanyB web application -- important to SprintCust's business)
[SprintCust] *calls up CompanyB* Hey, is your application down? We're trying to do our business with you but we can't and we're losing a lot of money
[SprintCust] ...
[SprintCust] ...it's because of WHAT?
[SprintCust] FUCK SPRINT

Then multiply that by a number whose product will cause the irritation of some upper managers and this will finally end -- they'll at least route traffic to them if they don't re-peer. (in theory -- i never said Sprint was a rational company)

Headline is wrong (4, Funny)

soundguy (415780) | more than 5 years ago | (#25580077)

Cogent runs the second largest tier-1 backbone on the planet and it is widely used by the adult industry. The headline should read:

Sprint cockpunches own customers by disconnecting them from porn.

/I run a few dozen porn servers on Cogent links

//Sprint can suck my balls

Re:Headline is wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25580241)

/I run a few dozen porn servers on Cogent links

Pics or it didn't happen!

Re:Headline is wrong (1)

cypher073 (864209) | more than 5 years ago | (#25580445)

Actually, Cogent doesn't run a tier-1 network at all. Because they paid and settlement-based peering with at least some other networks, they're technically tier-2. Cogent has a long history of being cut off -- French Telecom, AOL, Level 3, and several others over the years have disconnected them for various reasons.

Re:Headline is wrong (5, Informative)

soundguy (415780) | more than 5 years ago | (#25580611)

AOL repeered with Cogent something like a year ago. They were the last holdout and once that happened, Cogent was no longer paying anyone for transit and were therefore a full tier-1. Regardless of their peering status, they own and operate the second largest capacity network in the world. Traceroutes over the last couple of years would seem to indicate that they are servicing a fairly large number of eyeball networks in Europe these days as well as content networks all over the world. They are now sitting at the grownup's table and are no longer just a "discount" provider.

Re:Headline is wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25580549)

cockblocks*

Re:Headline is wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25580579)

That's what she said!

(OMFG no one will believe me but my word image is seriously 'erector')

This is not new (2, Interesting)

phillipsjk256 (1003466) | more than 5 years ago | (#25580083)

When my local phone company was having a labour dispute, they blocked the union website. Granted, this incident appears to be on a much larger scale.

My ISP at the time (Interbaun, recently bought by Uniserve) was also affected: They resell the Telus ADSL sevice (because the phone company owns the lines).

http://thetyee.ca/News/2005/08/04/TelusCensor/

According to the link I Dug up, it was back in 2005.

Re:This is not new (3, Informative)

cperciva (102828) | more than 5 years ago | (#25580625)

When my local phone company was having a labour dispute, they blocked the union website.

That is true, but leaves out some rather important details -- like the fact that the blocked website contained photos, addresses, and phone numbers of company managers and of workers who decided to cross the picket lines, and encouraged harassment of said individuals; and that threats of violence had been made against those managers and workers.

I'm not saying that Telus was right in blocking the website, but this wasn't merely a labour dispute.

Cogent depeering (4, Informative)

greg1104 (461138) | more than 5 years ago | (#25580147)

Why does this story sound familiar...right, because I've heard it twice before. In 2003 it was AOL who cut them off [isp-planet.com], then in 2005 Level 3 [tmcnet.com] did the same thing.

While it seems Sprint is to blame here, when I see Cogent on the bad end of this so many times I can't help but wonder how many of these problems are brought on by their own management. It's not too often you get to see a pair of N/A results on the health report [internetpulse.net], but as you can read that's exactly what happened in 2005 as well.

Re:Cogent depeering (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25580269)

testing slang fuck you

Re:Cogent depeering (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25580607)

In Soviet Russia, slang testing fucks you!

Cogent is the one behind the story in link (5, Informative)

George_Ou (849225) | more than 5 years ago | (#25580315)

Cogent is the one behind the story in link and it's obviously one-sided. Most of the time, ISPs get de-peered because they deserve it. However, the smaller ISP almost always gets away with it because they play the part of the victim who got severed and they usually win on the PR front. Pressure mounts and the larger ISP eventually settles and re-establishes the connection despite getting the raw end of the deal.

What generally happens is that these tier 1 ISPs start off with equal amount of traffic that is being routed on behalf of the other ISP so they're both giving each other equal value. But that balance shifts over the years and you might have one ISP giving back 1/8th of what they're taking but the larger ISP is afraid of bad PR if they sever the connection. What might be needed is some sort of arbitrator who will look in to the facts without blaming one side or the other and just examine the facts and issue a recommendation. During that period of arbitration, the peering should continue so that customers aren't affected. If one ISP is found to be unworthy of a settlement peering arrangement because they're not holding up their end of the bargain, then they should be ordered to pay. If they refuse to pay, they deserve the blame for not paying for their Internet backbone.

Plenty of ISPs pay for their peering arrangements if they're not able to build some backbones of equal value. There's no reason some ISPs should get a settlement free peering if they're not willing to upgrade the Internet's backbone infrastructure.

MOD PARENT UP Re:Cogent is the one behind (1)

OddlyMoving (1103849) | more than 5 years ago | (#25580657)

Not only is Cogent a provider of poor quality bandwidth, the parent cites the true reason why these de-peerings happen - not playing fair and contributing to the well being of the backbone.

Re:Cogent depeering (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25580455)

There was also a depeering incident between Cogent and Telia earlier this year.

Cogent was the one to pull the plug in that case, but it doesn't really matter -- it got pulled because Cogent had a dispute with one of its peers, and they no longer found it mutually beneficial to interconnect. Cogent finds itself in these kinds of situations disproportionately often.

begging for more regulation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25580193)

they're just begging for a senate hearing on consumer rights violations, leading to more regulation. really just shooting themselves in the foot here.

This may be just the beginning of this stuff... (4, Interesting)

mlts (1038732) | more than 5 years ago | (#25580271)

As of now, there are no laws that an ISP has to deliver packets to any site, or any port.

IMHO, this is just the start of this type of activity. Eventually (assuming no regulation is done), ISPs will just refuse traffic from any domain who doesn't pay them a certain amount per bit per month. So, if Yahoo doesn't pay ISP "A" a fee so their bits will go across, all that ISP's subscribers would see either the destination unreachable, or even worse, be redirected to another site.

As of now, there are no laws against ISPs doing this. One could in the future attempt to go to their bank, be redirected to another bank because the other bank pays the ISP to carry their traffic and refuse the other bank access.

Re:This may be just the beginning of this stuff... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25580655)

One could in the future attempt to go to their bank, be redirected to another bank because the other bank pays the ISP to carry their traffic and refuse the other bank access.

This sort of thing is given as the reason that a Chicago mortician (Strowger) invented auto-telephony. He suspected that the telephone operators were sending his customer's calls to his opposition. Can we hope for a similar outcome?

English, please (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 5 years ago | (#25580273)

COL is not a word. What you meant is SOL. Anyways...

Re:English, please (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25580357)

he didn't say "COL", he said "crap out of luck". if you're seeing the latter, reading it as the former, and then complaining about the writer's English capabilities, i can only recommend an eye exam and a fucking ESL class.

disruptive pricing (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25580287)

All of Cogent's previous de-peering problems were ultimately due to their ultra low prices and their ability to steal customers. I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case again. Everyone has a lot of money to lose with Cogent's $6/Mbps pricing today. It undercuts everyone else. Cogent is basically wiping them clean (and not making much money in the process.) Ultimately they are banking on MUCH larger uses in the future. But their business model is not exactly profitable.

Call me a troll if you want (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 5 years ago | (#25580313)

But I think this is a good thing. Maybe now it might motivate people to demand that they
FIX IT!...Just FIX IT!... find the problem, and FIX IT!

What they are doing is probably illegal. (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 5 years ago | (#25580471)

Until the lawsuit is settled, that is.

At that point, it is up to the courts. But people paying for general access today, deserve general access.

Obligatory Ironic Rhetoric. (1, Insightful)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 5 years ago | (#25580501)

Clearly, this is an example of the free market prevailing in the provision of an efficient, secure, neutral, functional, and complete internet to the populace!

If only those other regulations were not getting in the way, compelling sprint to cut cogent off.

While you still have connectivity (5, Funny)

really? (199452) | more than 5 years ago | (#25580533)

OK everyone, while you still have connectivity login to your boxes and do your OS's/distribution's equivalent of "apt-get install UUCP"

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...