Re: Sprint / Cogent dispute over?

From: Paul Wall (no email)
Date: Sun Nov 02 2008 - 20:02:53 EST

  • Next message: Seth Mattinen: "Re: Sprint / Cogent dispute over?"

    On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 6:05 PM, Brandon Galbraith
    <> wrote:
    > Seeing as Cogent is going to try tooth and nail to keep their new found Tier
    > 1 status (and not pay anyone for transit), I would think this would bode
    > worse for Sprint, since most of their transit customers could migrate to
    > Cogent (saving $$$ and not having to face future depeerings). Just my $0.02.

    Cogent has never been a Tier 1, they have only been "transit free". Being
    transit free is not a difficult accomplishment, it just means that you don't
    announce or receive routes via a relationship which is intended to be heard
    by the entire Internet. You could easily go out and buy transit from each of
    the existing transit free networks, tag your routes with communities to only
    announce to customers, and become a "transit free" network with global
    reachability overnight. Of course, this carries with it the risk of breaking
    global Internet connectivity in the event of a depeering. It is well known
    that Cogent pays for out-of-ratio traffic with Level3 and Telia, and clearly
    Sprint says that they have no actual peering agreement. This doesn't have
    the making of a real tier 1 network.

    As far as fighting "tooth and nail", that much seems abundantly clear
    considering that they are actually stealing service from Sprint (and have
    been for over a year) in order to maintain their status. They used a "trial"
    peering session to weasel their way into a direct connection with Sprint,
    and once they got it they intentionally changed their announcements so
    that if Sprint disconnected them it would cause unreachability.

    It seems abundantly clear that this situation was created entirely by
    Cogent, and that they are intentionally harming their customers and the
    customers of Sprint in an effort to extort a settlement free relationship.
    This is despicable behavior, if not outright criminal activity considering
    the theft of service they are committing, and it is amazing that Sprint
    cared enough about Internet connectivity to allow it to continue for so
    long, and to restore connectivity temporarily.

    If any of us stopped paying for our Internet service, and set up routing
    so that as soon as our provider turned us off we would be reachable to
    them and their customers complained, then demanded that they give
    us free service in order to restore connectivity, we would be laughed
    at. That is what Cogent has done here, and just because they've done
    it on a large scale doesn't make it right. This specific issue will be
    solved in a real court and not the court of public opinion, but we
    should all do our parts to recognize the blatant lies Cogent has told,
    and to make it clear that we will not accept that kind of behavior. The
    last thing the Internet needs is more misguided regulation because
    someone actually believed Cogent's lies.

  • Next message: Seth Mattinen: "Re: Sprint / Cogent dispute over?"

    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs

    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD