Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Peering Disputes Migrate To IPv6

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 4 years ago | from the square-peg-and-deliberate-round-hole dept.

The Internet 111

1sockchuck writes "As more networks prepare for the transition to IPv6, we're seeing the first peering disputes (sometimes known as 'Internet partitions') involving IPv6 connectivity. The dispute involves Cogent, which has previously been involved in high-profile IPv4 peering spats with Sprint, Level 3 and Telia. Hurricane Electric, which has been an early adopter on IPv6, says Cogent won't peer with it over IPv6. Hurricane has extended an olive branch by baking a cake bearing a message of outreach for Cogent."

cancel ×

111 comments

Uh huh (5, Funny)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 4 years ago | (#29851921)

I think we all know about the cake...

Re:Uh huh (2, Funny)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 4 years ago | (#29852017)

I think we all know about the cake...

It's full of strippers?

Re:Uh huh (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29852087)

I think we all know about the cake...

It's full of strippers?

No.

It's never there...

It's never there...

It's never, ever, ever, ever there!

Re:Uh huh (4, Funny)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 4 years ago | (#29852533)

It's full of strippers?

Yahoo!

Re:Uh huh (1)

sharkey (16670) | more than 4 years ago | (#29853063)

Better than an ice-sculpture filled with McBain.

Re:Uh huh (0)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#29852155)

it depends on if it's a sheet cake and whether they mean that figuratively or phonetically.

Re:Uh huh (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 4 years ago | (#29852567)

What? Just let'em eat it?

Re:Uh huh (4, Informative)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | more than 4 years ago | (#29852611)

It's so delicious and moist! :-)

Re:Uh huh (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 4 years ago | (#29853853)

Look at me still talking while there's science to do...

Baking a cake bearing a message of outreach (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29851959)

Hurricane was planning on giving Cogent a series of collector's DVDs, but they weren't sure what region Cogent was in.

analogy (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29851961)

That's kind of technical, so I'm most of slashdot doesn't understand. To put it in terms you would understand:

You're a gay dude. You like to top and you like to bottom. You hook up with another dude, but he doesn't want to bottom, he only wants to top. As much as you love dick in your ass, you want to fuck his ass too.

Hope that helps.

Re:analogy (5, Informative)

BronsCon (927697) | more than 4 years ago | (#29852341)

As much of a troll as this may have been, it was, sadly, a very accurate analogy of a relationship with Cogent.

Re:analogy (4, Funny)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 4 years ago | (#29854815)

Can someone give me that as an analogy with bi-curious cars instead?

Re:analogy (3, Funny)

webmistressrachel (903577) | more than 4 years ago | (#29855633)

Yes, I can.

Your bisexual male friend (who happens to be a car) wants to play with your girlfriend (who is also a car?). BUT he wont let you play with his (multiple) girlfriends, err.. sorry, cars. They're bored and don't get any while he plays away. In fact, I can think of a few situations like this in real life, too!! Wierd but accurate. Not posted AC..., girls with guts on Slashdot, scary eh?? Guys, run awaaaayyy!

GOP - Ghastly Old Party-poopers (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29851965)

Never vote Republican again.

They ruined the country and now they are trying to stop us from fixing it.

Re:GOP - Ghastly Old Party-poopers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29853003)

Political parties are for pussies who can't think for themselves.

It will work itself out. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29851985)

As more customers complain about not being able to access certain sites. Business will be lost, and gained and eventually it will eventually stabilize.

Re:It will work itself out. (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#29852735)

As more customers complain about not being able to access certain sites. Business will be lost, and gained and eventually it will eventually stabilize.

There we're 3 different links to 3 different ISP's about the previous cases, over IPv4. If that didn't work out like you describe, it's not going to work for IPv6 because no one is still using it.

ob. (3, Funny)

shentino (1139071) | more than 4 years ago | (#29851989)

THE CAKE IS A LIE!

Re:ob. (3, Insightful)

Interoperable (1651953) | more than 4 years ago | (#29852041)

It had to happen that this would be posted when the article went up. It's done now. We can avoid any more Portal references for the rest of the discussion.

Re:ob. (1, Redundant)

eln (21727) | more than 4 years ago | (#29852101)

I agree. Your comment is a triumph. I'm making a note here: HUGE SUCCESS.

Re:ob. (4, Funny)

Molochi (555357) | more than 4 years ago | (#29852195)

This unfair to Cogent. They are obviously only doing what they must, because they can, for the good of all of us.

Re:ob. (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29852405)

...except the ones who are dead

Re:ob. (2, Funny)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#29853019)

Except the ones who are dead.

Re:ob. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29853167)

Well there's no sense crying over every mistake.

Re:ob. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29853285)

Well, they already used up their cake, so there's no more trying...

Re:ob. (1, Offtopic)

idontgno (624372) | more than 4 years ago | (#29852205)

Yes, I think we can all be glad we got that out of our systems.

By the way, did I hear someone say that the IPv6 peering agreement was moist and delicious?

Re:ob. (1, Offtopic)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#29852323)

Oh come on. Just because you're no fun, doesn't mean we aren't.

Re:ob. (0, Troll)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#29852497)

Oh, and parent is not offtopic? Or do you have to be an unfunny ass, just like that moderator, to be on topic nowadays?

Re:ob. (0, Offtopic)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 4 years ago | (#29852869)

Oh, and parent is not offtopic? Or do you have to be an unfunny ass, just like that moderator, to be on topic nowadays?

Yes the g-g-parent was offtopic, and yes being an unfunny ass does help here on /.

but mostly having 37 accounts allows you to mod your own posts up...

Re:ob. (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#29852537)

We can avoid any more Portal references for the rest of the discussion.

Yes, now we can get back to the simpsons references, notifications of not being a lawyer, car metaphors, MS bashing, and the inevitable hitler reference.

On the other hand, I believe a highly motivated slashdotter can complete a thread without godwining while enduring the most intense physical pain.

Okay, NOW the portal references are done.

Re:ob. (1)

http (589131) | more than 4 years ago | (#29854647)

I, for one, welcome our new masochistic /. overlords!

Re:ob. (2)

Rei (128717) | more than 4 years ago | (#29852197)

"The IT Center reminds you that the Beige IPv6 Router cannot speak. In the event that the Beige IPv6 Router does speak, the IT Center urges you to disregard it's advice."

Re:ob. (1)

Matheus (586080) | more than 4 years ago | (#29852359)

Too bad the cake also has a typo... too bad they don't make a spell checker that supports the ICING standard.

The Cake is... (2, Informative)

Impsyn (1663137) | more than 4 years ago | (#29851993)

http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2009/10/22/peering-disputes-migrate-to-ipv6/ [datacenterknowledge.com] Only article I could find with a pic of the cake.

Re:The Cake is... (5, Funny)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 4 years ago | (#29852021)

Um... that's TFA. It wasn't hard to find. :/

Re:The Cake is... (1)

vertinox (846076) | more than 4 years ago | (#29852315)

Um... that's TFA. It wasn't hard to find. :/

That's ok. I actually clicked on the link the OP posted.

A new low. Re:The Cake is... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29854261)

Um... that's TFA. It wasn't hard to find. :/

That's ok. I actually clicked on the link the OP posted.

I believe this is a new low. Thank you.

We've all seen people not read the article.

Occasionally people don't read the summary.

But to have someone not read the article, and then provide a link to it after googling is priceless. I almost blew coke all over my computer. I'm still chuckling.

Re:The Cake is... (2, Funny)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#29852559)

Um... that's TFA. It wasn't hard to find. :/

It's in TFA: it has been empirically demonstrated that accessing it is impossible for most people commenting.

Re:The Cake is... (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 4 years ago | (#29852241)

They misspelled "Please" on the cake. Pitiful.

Maybe Cogent is just holding out for a peer that can spell at the 3rd-grade level.

Re:The Cake is... (1)

Guyver3 (231816) | more than 4 years ago | (#29852267)

Hotel catering fail more likely.

Re:The Cake is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29852749)

Damn ESL engineers or ESL cake bakers. Not sure which. Probably ESL engineers though. Cogent will probably hit back with a tort saying "lern too spell and wee wil peer IPv6 at yew". Next comes a tort of a different, less flavorful, variety complete with IANAL comments.

Re:The Cake is... (1)

TheP4st (1164315) | more than 4 years ago | (#29852769)

They misspelled "Please" on the cake.

Or... they made a point by peering the über delicious e via IPv6 ;-)

Re:The Cake is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29854191)

Try the first reply in the mailing-thread link for the flickr...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/77519640@N00/4031434206/

Oh great, Cogent is at it again (3, Interesting)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 4 years ago | (#29852037)

Anyone feel like taking bets on how long it will take until the other Tier 1 ISPs gang up on Cogent and just shut off their peering to Cogent?

Seriously, every one of these conflicts that Cogent gets involved in seems to involve Cogent acting like a bunch of dicks and the only people defending them are their most loyal customers and their employees, why are they even still in business?

/Mikael

Re:Oh great, Cogent is at it again (0, Flamebait)

ePhil_One (634771) | more than 4 years ago | (#29852285)

Seriously, every one of these conflicts that Cogent gets involved in seems to involve Cogent acting like a bunch of dicks

Interesting perspective. Level 3 de-peered Cogent because they wanted Cogent to pay for the access. I believe the others were similar. Since when is not rolling over for a bully the same as "acting like a bunch of dicks"?

Re:Oh great, Cogent is at it again (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#29852353)

Well... if you combine being a bully, and the behavior that psychology calls "reflectance"...

Re:Oh great, Cogent is at it again (5, Interesting)

Burdell (228580) | more than 4 years ago | (#29852387)

Peering is generally only considered "fair" if there is a similar flow of traffic in each direction (averaged over a good period of time). Peering agreements are written with certain traffic ratios defined, and going outside those ratios terminates the agreement or triggers a payment clause. It appears that in every case, Cogent traffic had dropped outside of the contract ratios, and so they were asked to pay for service like anyone else (as it was no longer an equitable peering), and instead they threw a public tantrum and blamed everybody else.

The details are never made public, so when it happens once, you don't really know who is telling the truth. When it happens over and over again with one provider, as with Cogent, a picture begins to form. Cogent is a "tier-1" wanna-be, but don't have the traffic to back it up. They've been caught lying before, so at this point, they have no credibility.

Re:Oh great, Cogent is at it again (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#29852633)

Or rust belt servers that still have some useful life in them and no real demand for IPv6.
Why buy expensive new kit when the old stuff still lights up.
A public dispute is better then a 'no' you dont need it, we will upgrade when IPv6 is hyped and cheap.

Re:Oh great, Cogent is at it again (4, Interesting)

dozer (30790) | more than 4 years ago | (#29853235)

Back in the old days, whenever our peering ratio started getting wobbly, we'd just set up NNTP servers and have them hammer away (either downloading or uploading, depending on what direction we needed to move the balance).

I assume ISPs are still doing this but they're probably using BitTorrent now instead of NNTP.

Re:Oh great, Cogent is at it again (2, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | more than 4 years ago | (#29853267)

That is true and quite silly all at once. Given network A and B with where B is full of servers that want to serve content (and ads of course) and A is full of clients that want to view that content, both networks have been paid by their customers to complete those transactions and both are failing to honor their agreements if they don't do it.

On one hand, I see what you mean about it always being Cogent involved, but at the same time they undercut prices on all of the networks that have de-peered them, so it could be that there are ulterior motives.

Re:Oh great, Cogent is at it again (2, Informative)

oasisbob (460665) | more than 4 years ago | (#29853855)

That is true and quite silly all at once. Given network A and B with where B is full of servers that want to serve content (and ads of course) and A is full of clients that want to view that content, both networks have been paid by their customers to complete those transactions and both are failing to honor their agreements if they don't do it.

That's true; however, for an ISP there is more to it than that. Depending on which POP generates the traffic, and which one sinks it, hot-potato routing can be unfair. Lets say BigPornSite uses SuperCheapISP (eg Cogent) to reach their customers: BigPornSite is located on the west coast, but most of their viewers aren't. BigPornSite will hand off their traffic to SuperCheapISP in the west-coast data center, and SuperCheapISP will route the traffic to the viewer's ISP. (Let's say its Comcast...) However, if the Comcast customer is located on the East coast, Comcast is stuck paying for the coast-to-coast transport instead of SuperCheapISP.

So, SuperCheapISP got paid by the porn site to route the traffic for maybe 100m or so, and gets rid of it as soon as they can. Would you want to sign a peering agreement with them, knowing that they're going to dump tons of traffic on your network with no regards to where its actually going? Yes, it's silly, but there's a precedent here. Ratio limits are in place to protect against tricks like this.

Re:Oh great, Cogent is at it again (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29855807)

What is the difference between traffic you send me and traffic I request from you? Cogent gets into peering issues because they host a lot of content. Content that users request. I'm a Sprint customer and I pay Sprint to get my to Cogent content. Why should Cogent have to pay Sprint as well?

Re:Oh great, Cogent is at it again (1)

teknopurge (199509) | more than 4 years ago | (#29852479)

Mod parent up. People are wanting 'something for nothing' again. I also take offense to HE's comments about "caring about their customers being the most important thing" implying Cogent doesn't. I'm not fan of Cogent, but hell HE, if you care about your customers spend the money and get proper peeing agreements setup instead of blaming the other guy for not wanting to service your customers for free.

Re:Oh great, Cogent is at it again (1)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 4 years ago | (#29852615)

I'm not fan of Cogent, but hell HE, if you care about your customers spend the money and get proper peeing agreements setup instead of blaming the other guy for not wanting to service your customers for free.

I am sorry and normally the last person to call other slashdoters out on a typo but this one was just to funny....
 
I'm not fan of Cogent, but hell HE, if you care about your customers spend the money and get proper peeing agreements setup instead of blaming the other guy for not wanting to service your customers for free.

Re:Oh great, Cogent is at it again (0, Offtopic)

Kiralan (765796) | more than 4 years ago | (#29853023)

I am sorry and normally the last person to call other (slashdoters) out on a typo but this one was just (to) funny.... I am sorry too, and normally the next to last person to call other slashdotters out on a typo, but YOU misspelled slashdotters AND used the wrong too!

I wouldn't peer with HE either.... (2, Interesting)

teknopurge (199509) | more than 4 years ago | (#29852039)

They are the Wal-Mart of bandwidth and offer dirt-cheap prices. How can they do that and expect to hand-off to more expensive/higher quality(It's Cogent, I know....) networks? People want cheaper and cheaper so a company will eventually come along that caters to that crowd, but how dare they expect to offer the same QoS and not pay for it. Forget peering then throttling the links, Cogent is doing the right thing and not even lighting the fiber.

Re:I wouldn't peer with HE either.... (2, Interesting)

mea_culpa (145339) | more than 4 years ago | (#29852229)

I don't know about this. I've used HE for various hosting needs for over a decade and they were never the 'Wal-mart' in their price and quality range. Using the big box store analogy, I'd rank them a Macy's.

Re:I wouldn't peer with HE either.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29852461)

Where do I sign-up for the Frederick's of Hollywood ISP?

Re:I wouldn't peer with HE either.... (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#29852589)

Re:I wouldn't peer with HE either.... (1)

jonwil (467024) | more than 4 years ago | (#29854401)

Internode is only usefull if you happen to be in Australia.
And if your customers are there too, that helps (given the high cost of links between .AU and the US)

Re:I wouldn't peer with HE either.... (1)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 4 years ago | (#29852773)

I'd go for the Bravissimo ISP, myself. ;)

Re:I wouldn't peer with HE either.... (1, Insightful)

klapaucjusz (1167407) | more than 4 years ago | (#29852255)

[Hurricane Electric] are the Wal-Mart of bandwidth and offer dirt-cheap prices. [...] how dare they expect to offer the same QoS and not pay for it.

Huh? You meant that there are operators that offer actual QoS for IP traffic? If so, it's an interesting new research result, and I'd like to see the technology.

(More seriously -- unless you can show us that HE's SLA is significantly worse than other operators', I recommend that you shut up. What you're doing is called uninformed FUD.)

Re:I wouldn't peer with HE either.... (2, Insightful)

teknopurge (199509) | more than 4 years ago | (#29852459)

An SLA won't show it - latency reports will. Yes, we have plenty of them. Also yes, there are many ISPs that offer QoS for IP traffic. (including us)

Re:I wouldn't peer with HE either.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29852491)

Last I checked, you don't need QoS when there are no congestion issues on your network. Also, since when does webhosting with theplanet qualify you as an ISP? Where is your network map / ASN?

Re:I wouldn't peer with HE either.... (1)

FireFury03 (653718) | more than 4 years ago | (#29854929)

Last I checked, you don't need QoS when there are no congestion issues on your network.

Network traffic tends to be bursty, this means that even with "no congestion issues", there will be queued traffic during the bursts, it just averages out over short periods of time. QoS can be important in these cases since it allows you to move traffic for applications that are adversely affected by latency to the front of the queue. On a network with adequate capacity, the result of this is that things like VoIP work better because the latency stays very low all the time, whilst things like bittorrent get variable latency (which doesn't affect the raw throughput, so no one will notice).

Of course, there are always times when even the most well provisioned network gets congested (e.g. if a good number of connections get chopped then the remaining parts of the network come under increased load. A good example of this is in the case of natural (or not so natural) disasters where not only have you lost a lot of the network, but the world and his dog is on the web trying to get news updates.

QoS isn't without issues though - one of which is trying to identify which traffic to prioritise. I personally favour paying attention to the ToS flags so that applications can signal what kind of service they need and automatically penalising users who are abusing this (e.g. by tagging bittorrent traffic as low-latency).

Re:I wouldn't peer with HE either.... (1, Insightful)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 4 years ago | (#29852575)

Ah, so you're slandering them for competitive reasons, then.

Re:I wouldn't peer with HE either.... (1)

JesseMcDonald (536341) | more than 4 years ago | (#29853487)

Motivation aside, it's not slander if it's true.

Regarding the motivation, competitors can be a great source of negative information to counter a company's (possibly excessive) self-promotion. Between the two you have all the data you need as a starting point for your own fact-checking.

Would I be an awful person... (3, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#29852157)

If I were to express confidence that there is a perfectly cogent explanation for the behavior of both disputing parties?

Yes. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29852581)

You would.

Re:Would I be an awful person... (1)

zapakh (1256518) | more than 4 years ago | (#29853729)

If I were to express confidence that there is a perfectly cogent explanation for the behavior of both disputing parties?

The net-net is, that's up to your peers.

Now excuse me while IP.

Growing Trend... (2, Interesting)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#29852161)

I haven't been with it long enough to know how often this kind of stuff goes on, but are Cake Gestures common in IT/IS/CT? Or only after the release of Portal? I recall IE sending a Cake to Firefox... Or Mozilla... Or something... (or vice versa, I don't really remember who congradulated who)...

It almost seems like they would send a cake hoping it'll get news'd somewhere so the public favours whoever is sending the cake.

Or maybe I'm just paranoid. The companion cube will do that to ya, you know.

Re:Growing Trend... (2, Informative)

Lennie (16154) | more than 4 years ago | (#29853199)

Actually no, it was because HE's Leber mentioned on NANOG the following:
“we stop short of baking cakes” to encourage peering. That got the ball rolling.

Re:Growing Trend... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29854645)

it's odd to think about how the new people who come to this site will be. they who no longer recognise what memes we take for granted. will they adopt them or will this kind of questioning persist or will there just be uniform progression?
i guess i answered my own question

Transition going well... (3, Insightful)

freak132 (812674) | more than 4 years ago | (#29852217)

It seems that the IPv6 transition is going well; we've migrated peering disputes to the lovely next generation protocol.

Go peer with google instead (1, Interesting)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 4 years ago | (#29852245)

They've already bought loads of dark fibre, maybe they'd be interested in getting a controlling stake in IPv6 early on.

Re:Go peer with google instead (2, Insightful)

nnet (20306) | more than 4 years ago | (#29852311)

like everything else google, ipv6 is in beta :)

Re:Go peer with google instead (2, Interesting)

dotwaffle (610149) | more than 4 years ago | (#29852363)

Right, so you peer with Google, who have a fairly open peering policy. How does that solve you getting access to Cogent's customers? You expect Google to leak Cogent's routes to it's peers free of charge?

Re:Go peer with google instead (1)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 4 years ago | (#29852675)

The problem probably wouldn't be getting Google to route your traffic to Cogent through their net, the problem would be Cogent blackholing all traffic from your AS regardless of how it was routed to them (as they've done before).

/Mikael

Re:Go peer with google instead (1)

Lennie (16154) | more than 4 years ago | (#29853215)

This hasn't happend with HE just yet. But it might, yes.

Also I don't think Google would do transit for anyone, it's not in their interrest (normally).

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29852339)

may have gotten somewhere, had they spelled "please" correctly.

Could someone elaborate? (2, Interesting)

spectre_240sx (720999) | more than 4 years ago | (#29852613)

For those of us who don't have experience with how the big ISPs connect to each other, could someone shed some light on the situation? Does peering involve a physical connection or is it just down to advertising routes? I thought having your routes advertised was a good thing.

Re:Could someone elaborate? (1)

SleepingWaterBear (1152169) | more than 4 years ago | (#29853141)

Some info here [wikipedia.org]

Basically, different companies own and operate the physical cables, and they charge for use. To provide their own clients with access to other parts of the internet in principle they would have to buy bandwidth from their competitors, but rather than do this, the network owners often make agreements to pass on data for each other free of charge.

Re:Could someone elaborate? (2, Informative)

Lennie (16154) | more than 4 years ago | (#29853261)

Try this article and other posts on the same blog:

http://www.renesys.com/blog/2005/12/peering_the_fundamental_archit.shtml

Re:Could someone elaborate? (1)

spectre_240sx (720999) | more than 4 years ago | (#29854237)

That cleared it up for me. Thanks.

Seen before with Cogent/Sprint (5, Informative)

mjensen (118105) | more than 4 years ago | (#29852651)

The following is copied from a previous Cogent/Spint debacle posting:

Just like what happened with Level(3) a few years ago.

Cogent's history in the ISP market has been absolutely horrible. They came in to town as the Walmart of ISPs, investing in a huge new super-efficient backbone infrastructure doing everything it could to cut costs so they could offer insane deals to their customers. They were running 10Gigabit connections using existing fiber and brand new equipment. They had no 'legacy' hardware.

The hosting industry bit into the Cogent game when they had customers running multimedia sites that needed tons of bandwidth (see: porn) and were tired of paying insane rates per mbps when Cogent had this brand new network with tons of capacity.

But Cogent wasn't in the 'settlement free interconnect' game yet, they were paying for bandwidth themselves. So they went out and purchased a few ISPs that already had settlement free interconnects. The agreements are already in place, so it was a big win situation for them. But these agreements almost always come with the term that you must give as much as you receive (so you need to have a balance between hosted sites and end users.) Cogent didn't have end users, they had servers.

Think of it this way: I am an apartment complex and I have an agreement to mow my neighbor's lawn and in exchange he shovels my sidewalk. It uses approximately the same amount of work. Now imagine my neighbor and all of his agreements are bought by the local golf course. Now the golf course now expects me to mow the entire course because the agreement was that they would shovel and I would mow. Cogent was the golf course, I am an ISP.

Now in my apartment I house a bunch of golfers once I say "screw this, figure out your lawn situation yourself" the course says "ok, well, I guess your tenants are going to have to go without golf." What the hell am I to do now? Mow this golf course to keep my tenants happy?

Finally I come to an agreement, the golf course has to pay me a small amount and I will mow their grass. Everything seems OK, but then the golf course gets in to a bit of trouble and all of a sudden decides "OK, well... he doesn't want his tenants to go without golf so he will probably keep mowing our grass even if we stop paying him." Here we are again, I'm in an impossible situation because I really care about my tenants but man, I just cannot mow an entire golf course all by myself. So I send the golf course warnings after warnings, and after I reach a tipping point I just say "GFY, I'm not mowing your course anymore." I stop mowing it, and the golf course says "IT IS TOTALLY HIS FAULT THAT YOU CANNOT PLAY GOLF!!!"

Right now a lot of ISPs can hit Cogent's old pricing (and Cogent just cannot go any lower than they already are) so a lot if ISPs will just pass on Cogent and go for someone with a better record.

There is a lot more to the story that we don't know about, and since these agreements are generally done under a NDA we will never know for sure what exactly is happening at Cogent.

Just a FYI: I work for a hosting company that has had some dealings with Cogent in the past.

Re:Seen before with Cogent/Sprint (3, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | more than 4 years ago | (#29853451)

The analogy doesn't work though, because no matter how much traffic there is or how unbalanced it may be, every last bit of it represents a peer on one network that has paid for connectivity with the other network. Every meg Cogent shoveled through the peering point only went there because a customer of the other network wanted his porn from a server on Cogent's network.

I won't say that Cogent is in any way, shape or form perfect. They could stand to improve a LOT in many areas. But then, the same is true of every transit provider.

Re:Seen before with Cogent/Sprint (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29854141)

The problem is hot-potato routing, and the fact that cogent (anyone, really) will push that traffic out of their network and into someone else's over the peering point as soon as possible.

If they held the packet for as much as they possible could in their network, the tale would be different. But that's not easy to do, and generally not done anyway except in very, VERY specific situations.

So, the peering agreements among such networks really have to try to strike a balance of in/out traffic, and either terminate the peering or require compensation from the party that PRODUCES most of the traffic to the one that has to RECEIVE most of that traffic. It *really* is all about hot-potato routing.

Re:Seen before with Cogent/Sprint (1)

svc00 (834626) | more than 4 years ago | (#29855907)

If the content network is directly connected to the eyeball network, your analysis is correct; both ISP are being paid by their respective customers to move data their customers both want. But eyeballs are all over the place, and there is often a third network in between that is actually moving the bits the furthest. Those peering relationships are where the problem is.

Re-brand (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29852933)

Just re-brand to starkpun.

The cake is not a lie! (1)

SimGuy (611829) | more than 4 years ago | (#29853027)

The cake was presented during a Peering BoF at the NANOG meeting in Dearborn, MI this week, in reference to a joke on the NANOG mailing list that they had tried everything with Cogent short of baking them a cake.

I was there, and the cake was tasty. :)

What happened to IPv5? (1, Interesting)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | more than 4 years ago | (#29853255)

If we are gonna skip numbers, why "6"?, sounds like the devil's work to me. They even use "hex" numbers in the dot notation... (which is 8 groups of 4 hex digits... so why not IPv8?)

I'm just sayin.

Re:What happened to IPv5? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29853735)

We skip nothing. There was ipv5 [wikipedia.org]

Re:What happened to IPv5? (1)

zapakh (1256518) | more than 4 years ago | (#29853763)

If we are gonna skip numbers, why "6"?, sounds like the devil's work to me. They even use "hex" numbers in the dot notation... (which is 8 groups of 4 hex digits... so why not IPv8?)

8 looks too much like 6. We'll have to bring back IPv9 [ietf.org] instead.

Re:What happened to IPv5? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29854157)

LMGTFY [lmgtfy.com]

Re:What happened to IPv5? (1)

skastrik (971221) | more than 4 years ago | (#29854865)

Who cares what happened to v5. One higher is obviously better, isn't it?
Anyways, I'll wait for v6.0.1 to have most of the bugs ironed out.

Re:What happened to IPv5? (1)

paul248 (536459) | more than 4 years ago | (#29854871)

Someone already tried IPv7 [ietf.org] in 1993.

IPv6 makes spamming easier, HE spams (1)

hardwarefreak (899370) | more than 4 years ago | (#29854459)

Considering the amount of spam historically coming from HE's network, I can't really blame Cogent for not wanting to peer HE's IPv6 traffic. Fighting spam in IPv6 space in much much more difficult than the current state of affairs.

Re:IPv6 makes spamming easier, HE spams (1)

svc00 (834626) | more than 4 years ago | (#29855787)

This is BS. Spamming over IPv6 is not easier. First of all, very few servers can even receive spam (or any email) over IPv6 yet. Second, identifying the source IP is a whole lot easier in IPv6 with its unfragmented IP allocations and a radically smaller routing table. Spam havens would stick out like a sore thumb. Yes, I've gotten my share of spam from HE netspace, but Cogent is responsible for quite a bit too. This isn't about Cogent not wanting its lily-white IPv6 network dirtied with HE packets. Its about Cogent using its tenuous Tier 1 status in the IPv4 world to try to usurp HE's Tier 1 status in the IPv6 arena.
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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...