Internet Partitioning - Cogent vs Level 3?

slashmicah asks: "Internet partitioning and Tier 1 ISPs are something most people don't know much about (myself included). Today, however, some Slashdot readers might have run into some issues involving these two topics. Cogent Communications and Level 3, both Tier 1 ISPs, are apparently having some 'undisclosed' disagreements, causing an Internet partition by turning-off or deactivating their peering point. Cogent Co. has released a statement explaining their side of the problem, however they have no mention of when the problem will be fixed, or when they will sort it out. This partitioning is a problem because any [single-homed] computers that are connected through Cogent Co, can not connect to [single-homed] computers connected through Level 3. Having spent all day sorting out this problem, I ask Slashdot: Isn't there a better way that the issue of peering can be handled/regulated? 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?"

Comments

Interesting scenario, though most likely untrue.

[versiondub]

While it is always fun to entertain such doomsday scenarios in ones' mind, I don't think that anything like this is possible. Current demands of most large corporations (Microsoft, Apple, any number of others) along with the internet-using public are for a universally-connected internet. Any company that simply creates its own network is going to face a huge revenue loss.

This is bad. Very bad.

[hernick]

I have reviewed all information available at this time, including discussion threads on many sites more specialised than Slashdot. This is bad. Very bad. Right now, there are millions of Internet users with partial connectivity.

But the action of Level3 is not merely an inconvenience to end users; it is hurting a great many small businesses, badly. There are thousands of small businesses that depend on single-homed Internet connectivity and that cannot afford dual-homing. There are dozens of low-cost datacenters that provide single-homed bandwith to tens of thousands of servers.

As we speak, the livelyhoods of thousands of entrepreneurs are being threatened. Many people depend on being able to offer internet services to any peer on the net. But today, Level3 has changed the rules of the game, and have split the Internet into two somewhat isolated internets.

This is happening on a very large scale. Sure, most of the affected people and businesses are going to get through it just fine. But given the sheer scale of the Internet, a small percentage of those depending on full connectivity will not escape this ordeal unscathed.

You can be sure that a few small businesses will close because of this, the reputations of a few persons will be damaged, and there will be a few bankruptcies - all because of Level3's evil actions. You won't hear about it in the media - nobody cares about such small-scale damage. But the damage is already done, and it is getting worse with every passing hour.

I urge you to join me in a five-minute hate against Level3 and all that their evil discriminative ways stand for. While Cogent is widely recognized for its shitty cut-rate network, they are the good guys here. In the past few years, Cogent has been a major driving force for lowering bandwith costs. Level3 is fighting back, and they long for the days where they charged 5000$/mbps. I say: down with Level3 !

Re:This is bad. Very bad.

[Anonymous Coward]

because they want Level3 to blink first, its a contest of wills, Cogent fancies itself a Tier 1 provider (ignore all the marketing crap from other wannabes), and L3 IS a Tier 1 provider. L3 thinks Cogent should be paying for dumping traffic on them, and Cogent thinks L3 should peer with them and pass their traffic down the line for no cost. Whichever company blinks first .. loses. If L3 blinks, they re-peer with Cogent, which gives Cogent more political power when it comes to other Tier 1s. If Cogent blinks first, they either send their packets via other Tier 1 providers to get to L3 or buy transit from L3. If Cogent blinks .. other Tier 1 providers are going to look at it and say 'hey, we could be making money too' and multiple instances of today will replay themselves out across the net.

Cogent's sells bandwidth for cheap ... too cheap to actually make any money at it, and now the house of cards is folding.

Re:Reminds me of...

[schickb]

Actually it appears that L3 has done more than just drop direct peering with Cogent. L3 seems to be filtering all traffic sourced from Cogent controlled IP blocks. So unless Cognet sets up a NAT arrangement with other peers, there is no way around this problem. L3 is actively blocking Cogent traffic.

If your company or ISP uses only Cogent for bandwidth, it is currently impossible to reach L3 only connected services. I believe L3 to Cogent is being blocked as well.

Re:OK, WTF time here

[EtherMonkey]

Okay, first off if your physician is using any IP-based service and ISN'T using a dedicated connection then no one's to blame except the fucktard who set it up in the first place.

1. Set down coffee cup;
2. Open front door;
3. Take deep breath;
4. Introduce yourself to reality.

Physicians are subject to the greater economic pressures than any other small business. Insurance companies, government regulations, litigation risks, patient scheduling, qualified and reliable staffing, emergency on-call, and obligitory hospital fundraising contributions. Given a choice between an $1,800/month point-to-point circuit PLUS provider termination and service fees, or a $59/month xDSL for probably 4x the bandwidth, which do you think most will use? If in doubt, give your physician a call and report back.