It was fricking bound to happen sometime. Level 3 physically shut down their peering facility to Cogent. That's right, two fucking Tier 1 providers just cut each other off.

Apparently its because Level 3 is pissed about Cogent's pricing. This means I can't fricking access ANY Cogent hosted sites, including my own colocated server, without going through a proxy on a different network. THIS IS BULLSHIT!!


Discuss.

And yes, I know I misspelled War. Bite me.

[Edited on October 6, 2005 at 1:29 AM. Reason : .]

10/6/2005 1:29:27 AM

for reference: http://ask.slashdot.org/askslashdot/05/10/05/2247207.shtml?tid=95&tid=187&tid=4

10/6/2005 2:50:20 AM

10/6/2005 3:24:23 AM

Quote :

"If not, does the future hold a scenario in which the Internet is split into several separate networks, only to be connected at the whims of large corporations?" "

I can't believe that made slashdot...

Does that guy honestly believe things aren't that way already???

10/6/2005 3:26:36 AM

What Slashdot didn't mention is that l3 has done more than just shut down their peering point. If that were all, you would still be able to access Cogent . . . you'd just be routed through slower, less efficient paths. However l3's routers aren't advertising paths to Cogent. So if your packets go over l3's network AT ALL you can no longer got to any Cogent hosted sites.

Which happen to be a hell of a lot. Anything with cheap "unmetered" colocation is probably on Cogent, which means a LOT of privately run sites. This has the potential to get very ugly.

10/6/2005 1:28:26 PM

yep, that's pretty gay

10/6/2005 3:28:36 PM

I'm honestly surprised it took this long to happen.

Though I'm now extremely glad I never bought one of unmetered servers when they first came out.

10/6/2005 4:13:12 PM

^^^ not necessarily. It looks like Cogent just isn't buying any transit that will reach Level 3.

And this only affects customers that are single-homed on Level3 reaching customers that are single-homed to Cogent. Most networks are multi-homed.

10/6/2005 7:20:15 PM

so, am i the only person who has no idea what is going on here?

10/6/2005 7:43:03 PM

^^^^^so what your saying is you should only be able to see Cogent or l3 websites (depending on what network your packets originate from). I can see both corp.'s websites - which i assume they host , so im confused. I read the slashdot article but still cant quite grasp the partiton if i can connect to both sites.

does all it mean is shit will be slower?

[Edited on October 6, 2005 at 8:17 PM. Reason : as u can tell im confused]

10/6/2005 8:16:41 PM

^ If you're on a network that has active peers to both, you're fine. IE on campus.


mellocj: If only it were that simple. I'm on Road Runner, which is certainly not single peered. It has uplinks to atdn (of course), l3, and several others . . . . however I can't reach any Cogent sites. Nobody on Road Runner can . . . and that's making a lot of people angry. l3's routers are still advertising a path to Cogent, however once the packets get there they aren't being rerouted. In short l3 is puposely killing traffic meant for Cogent.


EDIT: It looks like the other Tier 1's are finally realizing what is going on and acting accordingly. Seems like atdn flushed their bgp caches, and are now routing Cogent traffic through their Verio peer rather than Level 3.


[Edited on October 6, 2005 at 9:12 PM. Reason : .]

10/6/2005 8:59:53 PM

Quote :

"I'm honestly surprised it took this long to happen."

similar situation happened in 2001


Still dont know if i'm down with the idea of the UN taking over control on the internet

10/6/2005 9:30:39 PM

bump

2/8/2006 10:14:12 PM

Verizon is freakin out yo

BD - Your net worth jumped a bit today eh?

2/8/2006 10:15:28 PM

Quote :

"Senate looks at network neutrality and likes it Meetings of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation are not usually the stuff of which fireworks are made, but yesterday's hearing on network neutrality brought both sides of the debate to the table and allowed them to pitch their vision of the Internet's future to legislators. Vint Cerf from Google showed up, as did Walter McCormick from the USTA and Kyle McSlarrow from the NCTA (the telco and cable industry lobbying groups, respectively), along with Lawrence Lessig and others. All invited industries sent their biggest guns because Congress is in the midst of rewriting the 1996 telecommunications act, and decisions about network neutrality are expected to play a central role in the legislation. Cerf, a Google VP, got the ball rolling with his argument for the principle of network neutrality—a principal that he would like to see enshrined in law. "There are 250,000 networks that make up the Internet. They are compensated by its users," said net neutrality advocate Vinton Cerf, Google vice president and Internet pioneer. "Allowing broadband carriers to control what people see and do online would fundamentally undermine the principles that have made the Internet such a success." Google has lately been a special target of the telcos, which have argued that the search giant and other Internet companies are getting a "free lunch" at the expense of those firms that have invested the money to build out their broadband networks. Cerf was at pains to point out that network operators are being compensated by their subscribers, who are only paying them a monthly fee in order to access sites such as Google. In that sense, the network operators need Google at least as much as Google needs them. Without the network, Google would not exist, but without web content, the network operators would have little to sell. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) sided with Google and echoed their claim about payment. Referring to a recent Washington Post report in which a Verizon executive said Google and others shouldn't expect to enjoy a "free lunch" on its pipes, Dorgan said such reasoning was flawed. "It is not a free lunch...(broadband subscribers have) already paid the monthly toll...Those lines and that access is being paid for by the consumer." Most members on the committee, in fact, endorsed the idea of network neutrality. Ted Stevens (R-AK), who chairs the committee, said, "I do believe that net neutrality ought to be the basic principle of whatever legislation we pursue," though he also pointed out the difficulty of defining exactly what is meant by the term "network neutrality." As we have pointed out in previous coverage of the issue, the telcos have largely backed away from any ideas about degrading or limiting Internet service. Instead, their plan seems to call for the creation of a multi-tiered Internet experience, where users could pay additional fees for quality of service (QoS) guarantees on certain services in order to ensure better performance. The network operators claim that this model preserves the idea of network neutrality because they would do nothing to hinder regular traffic or prevent access to any services. You may recall that this was the exact model proposed by entrepreneur Mark Cuban, who argues that it is fairer to everyone by letting those who require QoS guarantees pay for the privilege of having them—much as a shipping service charges more for guaranteed overnight delivery, but will still deliver a package for far less if you are willing to wait. Knowing that such moves could be construed by some as violations of the network neutrality principle, the USTA CEO sought to reassure lawmakers that his industry is not planning anything of the kind. "Our commitment to our customers, our commitment to you is this: We will not block, impair, or degrade content, applications, or service," said Walter McCormick, president and chief executive of the United States Telecom Association (USTA), representing large telecom carriers. "That is the plainest, most direct way I know to address the concerns that have been raised." In the end, most of the senators on the committee endorsed the idea of network neutrality, though some wondered if legislation was truly needed. The thinking is that since there have been few network neutrality problems so far, it would be premature to introduce legislation to stop a problem that hardly exists. The obvious argument in favor of passing a bill now is that it is much easier to stop a practice from happening than to legislate it out of existence once it has become common, and this argument was in fact made by George Allen (R-VA), who compared it to stuffing a genie back into a bottle. Although even the network operators tried to paint themselves as friends of network neutrality, an ominous note was sounded by Mr. McSlarrow of the NCTA, who told the committee that "network neutrality" was aptly named. "Right now, innovation is exploding down the broadband highway, and perhaps unwittingly, proponents of net neutrality have chosen the right phrase . . . they would risk throwing all of that into 'neutral' . . . and freezing innovation and investment. One has to ask, why?" Expect network operators in both the telco and cable industries to continue spreading FUD about network neutrality even as they pledge to accept it. Consumers are unlikely to see any obviously abrasive measures taken by the network owners (such as blocking or degrading Vonage, for instance, or slowing access to Google), but are likely to start seeing offers to "upgrade" their Internet experience with some type of preferred QoS offerings that would come on top of their monthly access charge. If done right, this would not necessarily be a bad thing, but it is certainly an area to watch closely. The reality might turn out to be that several years down the road, default Internet packages will indeed be network neutral, but will also be wholly undesirable. Update: We contacted Brian Dietz, a VP at the NCTA, to ask him about Mr. McSlarrow's comments in particular, and the cable industry's stance on the issue in general. We pointed out that all the innovation Mr. McSlarrow mentions has happened on a neutral network, which has not seemed to dampen innovation or investment so far. Why, then, does the NCTA oppose codifying the principle of network neutrality into law? Mr. Dietz responds, "You are correct that network neutrality has been the marketplace principle, and it will continue to be. All of the innovation and investment you mention below has happened without government regulation. So why reverse course and now impose unnecessary government regulation that could stifle further investment when there is no evidence that a problem exists?""

2/8/2006 10:16:51 PM

God, getting the government involved in the internet is the WRONG FUCKING IDEA PEOPLE.


You thought the DMCA was bad.... holy crap.

2/8/2006 10:55:06 PM

^
I agree. Wait till they route all internet traffic through Area 51. [/Deus Ex reference]

2/8/2006 11:03:38 PM

and me, the common internet user, didn't even fucking realize shit was going on.

2/8/2006 11:11:56 PM