[nycbug-talk] Cogent and Sprint - a signal of things getting Oldschool?
max at neuropunks.org
Fri Oct 31 14:50:07 EDT 2008
Im sure Alex has more interesting things to contribute to this, but i
think this article illustrates the event pretty well:
note how nasa has single homed networks both on spring and cogent - much
lolz that is
Isaac Levy wrote:
> Hi All,
> A scary ike-brain-dump lunchtime essay for halloween!
> Freddie Crugar is slicing internet routing tables today!
> THE SCENARIO
> Many of you saw the news yesterday afternoon that Sprint cut off
> peering with Cogent.
> Here's a nice summary:
> And Last Night:
> "Sprint-Nextel Severs Its Internet Connection to Cogent
> Many of us remember how various peering wars especially in the late
> 90's made aspects of using the internet difficult and unreliable,
> (latency and reliability issues). Recent years, IMHO, have been much
> better- (though people on this list from various ISP's may say
> different :)
> I speak here as a user, from home, to business IT, to being a 'Colo
> Consumer' at various scales.
> For those who forgot, or for whom it wasn't relevant back then, this
> commonly affected both datacenter/colo services, as well as last-mile
> connections- at least far more than recent years- from a 'user'
> perspective. Peering problems have happened since, and Cogent is no
> stranger to peering disputes...
> Well, suddenly alarms are going off in my brain, yesterday's net
> hiccups feel like bad old times.
> My DSL (Speakeasy) gets quite slow for small periods of time since
> yesterday. OpenBSD 4.4 release today is coming down *slowly*. My
> home-office telecommute work day is sucking rocks.
> My neighbor (Comcast Cable), reported less than 20k bandwidth for long
> periods of time last night.
> Admittedly unscientifically, from my endpoint --> traceroute to known
> points in NYC, now go through mzima where they used to always go
> through some level3 pipes- so I *believe* I'm not crazy to say the
> Sprint/Cogent de-peering affected my piddly DSL, (as it reportedly
> seems to affect a lot more people).
> MY SMALL QUESTION (paging mr. Pilosoft...)
> Cogent. What's their deal? Are they really the McBandwidth that
> people speak of? Do they undercut the other carriers, as seems to be
> the legal/financial problem today- or are they a logical business
> manifestation in a market slow to change- (and in technology, I'm
> implying change moves with Moore's law)?
> From my view of available bandwidth in North America, all the big
> carriers have not met my expectations- none of them have had incentive
> to continue to invest in their infrastructure. I know this is a huge
> and arguable notion, but the way that amortized expenditures have
> played out in the open market make an environment where carriers want
> to squeeze as much use out of any infrastructure deployed.
> Can anyone on list who deals with pipes from the datacenter
> perspective Clarify WTF is up with Cogent for a 'Colo consumer' like
> Is this de-peering related to the big economic meltdown in some
> tangible way?
> OPENING A PANDORAS BOX?
> (why not- it is Haloween after all, muahahaha)
> I'm NOT saying this backbone/growth situation is an evil conspiracy,
> (though the big carriers do have a trollish history of greed and
> neglect); maintaining stability of the market as we know it can really
> stifle growth, e.g.:
> "Union Protests Verizon's Neglect Of Copper"
> (in favor of FIOS expendatures, 6 months ago)
> The workers seem to have had a valid point, (and are picketing more
> recently on similar lack-of-sane-resources issues). However, as an
> end user, I need the coming fiber *like yesterday*. And there is the
> rift. Upgrades.
> I would argue that to continue to compete and grow internationally,
> American businesses desperately need increased bandwidth all around-
> especially at the datacenter. I argue that carriers need to be
> supported in, as well as held accountable for, planning upgrade cycles.
> All the IT managers on list, at a myriad of tech and non-tech
> companies big and small, can understand tech growth strategies.
> With servers and computers, the cost of upgrade is commonly
> understood. In healthy (lucky) environments, growth is even planned
> for- that's part of an IT manager's job. We all get it.
> With that working understanding, the slow/expensive/unreliable
> offerings from internet carriers are truly frustrating.
> As a 'Colo consumer', I know full well how increased speed, latency,
> and stability affect many businesses bottom line. Typically,
> bandwidth decides success or failure of various businesses I've worked
> with. Stable computing is always my job, but the carriers are one
> element which is completely out of my hands.
> Lately, the economist Paul Krugman has come to the forefront through
> the market meltdown.
> I think the sentiment of this 6 year old article is absolutely
> relevant today,
> NY Times, December 6, 2002
> "Digital Robber Barons?"
> By PAUL KRUGMAN
> Krugman writes:
> "For example, I personally have no choice at all: if I want broadband,
> the Internet service provided by my local cable company is it. I'm
> like a 19th-century farmer who had to ship his grain on the Union
> Pacific, or not at all."
> More destructive than the lack of competition among providers, I would
> argue, is that the big telcos are "getting into farming" themselves-
> so to speak.
> Those here who know me, know that for years I always argue for a sort
> of "Separation of Content and Infrastructure", which I argue is
> similar in it's aim to the US Constitutional "Separation of Church and
> The myriad of other businesses the 'big backbone telcos' are running,
> (the wireleess phone mafia, ringtones, media/content distribution
> [think Viacom], CDN's, software/application/web development, etc...)
> This is as repressive as a world where Wall Mart was in charge of the
> roads and streets- what if Wall Mart built roads in place of the US
> Department of Transportation?
> In the world of roads and streets, this scenario is clearly
> unacceptable. In the world of backbone telcos, why do we all tolerate
> Why do so many people embedded in the business of technology simply
> lump disparate content and infrastructure digital businesses together
> and accept it all as 'technology'?
> Is government legislation of the backbones, (like the construction and
> maintenance of roads), an answer? American government sure hasn't
> been mature enough to rationally come close to this issue, (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_of_tubes
> >), but perhaps now that Ted Stevens is in the tank, <http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=avU1ymwZg4R4&refer=home
> >, we may have some hope... (haha).
> TIMING FOR THIS DISCUSSION
> (I've had it up to here with this mania...)
> Seriously- I feel this may be a critical moment to be thinking the
> notion of US Government regulation or involvement in internet
> infrastructure. Fundamental concepts and principles, not just
> technical implementation details.
> "If Obama Appoints a Tech Czar . . ."
> By Garrett M. Graff
> "Names kicking around Silicon Valley and the tech community as CTO
> candidates include Google’s Vint Cerf, one of the founders of the
> Internet, Microsoft’s Steve Ballmer, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, eBay founder
> Pierre Omidyar, and Lotus pioneer Mitch Kapor."
> Yuck. Since when did the most successful cutthroat Silicon Valley
> business leaders have any any place as public servants, where greater
> issues than their short-term tech market is at stake? The internet,
> and use of digital networks, is beginning to augment the fundamental
> fabric of our post-industrial lives.
> While it's exciting to me that a committed government 'CIO' post would
> be considered in the first place. It seems far better than a
> continuation of current network policy practices- a wild-west
> mentality where the administration simply ignores the public issues,
> and the most attention networks and technology get is from technology
> people like Mike Connell, among others (a Bush White House IT
> Additionally, we're watching the collapse of unregulated wild-west
> economics. Nobody is game to simply 'let the market decide' any more.
> But even the accomplished Vint Cerf bothers me in this role- as he
> currently is "Chief Internet Evangelist for Google" (Google's
> businesses have come to mangle Content and Infrastructure from an
> opposite position to the Telcos, IMHO).
> Who else could make a good candidate?
> What history of other critical infrastructure in North America is
> worth studying?
> - railroad
> - interstate highways
> - city roads
> - electrical grid
> - water rights
> What, with communications networks, could fundamentally change?
> With the election coming up next Tuesday, I DO NOT want this post to
> degenerate into a political thread- but I would like to point out the
> stated policies of our incumbent candidates are a VERY interesting read:
> I may sound negative here, but truly, I'm amazed and delighted the
> internet works at all- every day- and love working in it.
> Sorry for the long essay style post- if you read this far, thanks! If
> you choose to constructively comment, on or off list, (even
> constructively tell me I'm nuts), thanks even more!
> Who has internet backbone?
> talk mailing list
> talk at lists.nycbug.org
More information about the talk