Slashdot Mirror


Blackout Shows Net's Fragility

It doesn't come easy wrote to mention a ZDNet article discussing a recent outage between Level 3 Communications and Cogent Communication. A business feud inadvertently highlighted the fragility of the Internet's skeleton. From the article: "In theory, this kind of blackout is precisely the kind of problem the Internet was designed to withstand. The complicated, interlocking nature of networks means that data traffic is supposed to be able to find an alternate route to its destination, even if a critical link is broken. In practice, obscure contract disputes between the big network companies can make all these redundancies moot. At issue is a type of network connection called 'peering.' Most of the biggest network companies, such as AT&T, Sprint and MCI, as well as companies including Cogent and Level 3, strike "peering agreements" in which they agree to establish direct connections between their networks. "

7 of 287 comments (clear)

  1. The small should pay for the big? by hkmwbz · · Score: 5, Interesting
    As I understand it, these were about the same size and had an agreement, or didn't bother to bill each other. Then suddenly one of them figured out that "hey, we are bigger, so they should pay us!"... And the smaller one cut off the connection because they didn't want to pay since they considered themselves to be as big as their rival.

    What I don't get is why one of them would suddenly want the other to pay up. What's changed now, and why does the smaller company have to pay the big one's bills?

    Am I missing something here?

    --
    Clever signature text goes here.
    1. Re:The small should pay for the big? by Daniel+Boisvert · · Score: 5, Informative

      NANOG has been on fire with posts about this issue over the past few days. The following two from Leo Bicknell do a good job of explaining why this sort of thing would happen, why nobody in particular is The Bad Guy[tm], and why this issue has no relevance to the issue of internet resilience in the case of natural or manmade disaster:

      http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg12302. html
      http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg12350. html

  2. No worries by WormholeFiend · · Score: 5, Funny

    The pr0n industry was designed to find alternative routes of delivery in case of Internet outages.

  3. Efficiency can be the enemy of robustness by dpilot · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This statement popped up in some of my security readings. It's most "efficient" to have one path between two places, and it's most "efficient" to set up peering agreements to route packets. But these efficient measures can introduce single points of failure.

    On a similar note, that's why there are 13 root DNS servers, and why most of us aren't supposed to use them. The DNS example though, is one where efficiency and robustness agree. It's more efficient, at least in terms of net bandwidth, to use a DNS server closer than the root servers.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  4. Peering by Neurotoxic666 · · Score: 5, Funny

    At issue is a type of network connection called 'peering.'

    In other news, the RIAA announced they've stopped an extremely large P2P network.

    --
    You are more than the sum of what you consume. Desire is not an occupation.
  5. The fragility of the net by elfguygmail.com · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's very true, and anyone can see how a few big companies basically make the net work in north america. Simply do traceroutes to various big web sites, and you'll notice the packets always go across the same networks. The biggest one seems to be alter.net (MCI), with others including Level3, above.net, AT&T and UUnet. Basically you remove any of these and the North American part of the Internet would be in chaos. The problem is because most ISPs do the same thing. They pick a primary provider, and get a backup one. The problem is they all pick the same few primary companies, and their backup links are much smaller pipes.

  6. Re:The small should pay for the big? (mod this up) by gskouby · · Score: 5, Informative

    About 4 months ago I got a call from a sales critter at Cogent saying "We will knock 50% off of the price you are paying for your L3 connectivity if you drop them and come be our customer." I was kind of surprised at the boldness of this proposition because they were specifically targeting current L3 customers. I was even more surprised to find out from others that this sales pitch from Cogent was company wide. Of course this pissed off L3 and that was the start of this pissing contest.