- Related Stories
-
Network feud leads to Net blackout
October 5, 2005 -
Oversight needed?: Mishaps fuel regulation debate
December 26, 2001 -
Net blackout marks Web's Achilles heel
June 6, 2001
He can't reach his Web hosting company to update his site. Critical e-mails aren't going through, and some aren't reaching him. He can't get to some important sites on the Net, such as the popular Wikipedia encyclopedia.
The source of Bradham's difficulties is a feud between two big backbone Internet companies--the long-haul networks that most consumers and even most businesses ordinarily have little to do with. One of these companies, Level 3 Communications, has cut off direct communications with rival Cogent Communications, causing many of each company's customers to lose access to potentially significant swatches of the Net.
"We've been working with both (companies), but neither one will do anything until the other one budges," said Bradham. "It's very frustrating that two top companies would try to resolve this with a standoff like this."
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.
That means that when a Cogent customer wants to visit a Web site hosted by Level 3, the data can take a short, fast path, instead of winding its way around the broader Internet.
Typically, peering agreements are made without any money changing hands, since each company expects to hand off a roughly comparable amount of traffic. Smaller network companies buy what are called "transit" agreements with larger companies, in order to hand off their customers' traffic to the big networks.
Peering gone wrong
These collegial peering relationships among big companies allow traffic to flow efficiently across the Net without most customers knowing anything about the under-the-hood relationships. But when these relationships go sour, the feuding parties' lack of flexibility can result in blackouts like the one that occurred this week.
In this case, Level 3 says that it believes it is substantially larger than its rival, and told Cogent as long as 90 days ago that it was planning to sever the direct connection between the two networks. The connection could be re-established if Cogent were to pay Level 3 access fees for use of its network, the company says.
For its part, Cogent contends that it is similar in size to Level 3, and that it makes no sense to pay for the kind of peering relationship that it maintains with many other companies. Cogent is offering any Level 3 user who can't get to Cogent sites free Internet service for a year, in an attempt to attract its rival's customers.
"Our goal is to have this problem go away, whether through Level 3 reconsidering, or their customers coming to us," said Dave Schaeffer, chief executive officer of Cogent.
As of mid-Tuesday, both sides said they were committed to their position, showing no willingness to budge, despite complaints from customers on both sides around the Net that they can't reach Web sites or can't send e-mail to some addresses or receive it from others. This means that there is no immediate fix ahead, unless customers (or their ISPs) find an alternative or auxiliary network provider.
The scale of the problem
It's impossible to say precisely how many people are affected. Many customers of the two companies, and customers of the ISPs
See more CNET content tagged:
Cogent Communications, Level 3 Communications Inc., network company, blackout, relationship
Cogent is a positive force on the Internet. They are bringing down bandwidth prices. The quality of their service is excellent and their technical support shines too.
Level-3 on the other hand is a brutish, old-fashioned, monopoly-wannabe. They are trying to control the internet. They have always pushed around other companies. Their arrogance is matched only by their business incompetance.
It's important the public come out against Level-3 and for Cogent.
Cogent can make our lives better. Level-3 will make our lives worse.
Level-3 is the enemy of the internet and the people.
Level-3 also mistreats their own employees. They treat their workers like numbered slaves.
Please get involved in the fight.
frequently am inundated with spam from Cogent's network. I hope
they are forced to actually pay to distribute their crap to other
networks like Level-3.
Cogent decided it was not going to do that. It bet on Level(3) not pulling the peering. It bet wrong. Now it got caught with its pants down. It seems now it is also rather clear who has larger network - it is Cogent's customers that are ******** about the issues a lot more than the Level(3) customers.
Cogent is a positive force on the Internet. They are bringing down bandwidth prices. The quality of their service is excellent and their technical support shines too.
Level-3 on the other hand is a brutish, old-fashioned, monopoly-wannabe. They are trying to control the internet. They have always pushed around other companies. Their arrogance is matched only by their business incompetance.
It's important the public come out against Level-3 and for Cogent.
Cogent can make our lives better. Level-3 will make our lives worse.
Level-3 is the enemy of the internet and the people.
Level-3 also mistreats their own employees. They treat their workers like numbered slaves.
Please get involved in the fight.
frequently am inundated with spam from Cogent's network. I hope
they are forced to actually pay to distribute their crap to other
networks like Level-3.
Cogent decided it was not going to do that. It bet on Level(3) not pulling the peering. It bet wrong. Now it got caught with its pants down. It seems now it is also rather clear who has larger network - it is Cogent's customers that are ******** about the issues a lot more than the Level(3) customers.
In the book "Friday" by Robert A. Heinlein, practically all the violence in the book was caused by these companies and factions within them, not by nations at war with each other for territory or dwindling natural resources (those kinds of wars we'll likely be seeing later, as we run out of oil and clean water in the next ten to twenty years as even a certain well-known oceanographer stated that they'll be gone in twenty years back in 1995). Interesting reading if you want to try interpreting the intentions and reasoning behind corporations' facades. LOL But now, the masks are slipping, and we catch glimpses of what they really care about.
"Sometimes, it's all about the gold." The main motivations for humans is power and money (which in many circles is one and the same), fame, and the other one, which I won't name, but leads to increases in population.
The Internet was supposed to be set up so that it could survive in the event of nuclear war, like a fishnet of sorts, back in 1969, when it started as the ARPAnet. One spot gets taken out, and stuff goes around it. Kind of like guerilla warfare in a way, you don't give the enemy a central position to target (if you can be seen, you can be hit, and if you can be hit, you can be killed). But, with control of the Internet in the hands of corporations, we are playthings to their whims. People don't get access to information, their e-mails never get sent to where they sent them, non-profits like the one in the story as well as small businesses suffer... We all lose. Not that we should allow governments to control the Internet, either, or else they'll likely create a neck-crushing grip on what people can say and do on the Internet, attempting to make it so that no single person of any culture gets offended.
As U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell wrote: "As the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed, the Internet deserves the highest protection from governmental intrusion." (More quotes here, if you're interested, and no, it's not a real commercial site: www.cyberwolfman.com/quotes.htm)
Oops. I'm ranting again, aren't I? LOL
- CyberWoLfman
In the book "Friday" by Robert A. Heinlein, practically all the violence in the book was caused by these companies and factions within them, not by nations at war with each other for territory or dwindling natural resources (those kinds of wars we'll likely be seeing later, as we run out of oil and clean water in the next ten to twenty years as even a certain well-known oceanographer stated that they'll be gone in twenty years back in 1995). Interesting reading if you want to try interpreting the intentions and reasoning behind corporations' facades. LOL But now, the masks are slipping, and we catch glimpses of what they really care about.
"Sometimes, it's all about the gold." The main motivations for humans is power and money (which in many circles is one and the same), fame, and the other one, which I won't name, but leads to increases in population.
The Internet was supposed to be set up so that it could survive in the event of nuclear war, like a fishnet of sorts, back in 1969, when it started as the ARPAnet. One spot gets taken out, and stuff goes around it. Kind of like guerilla warfare in a way, you don't give the enemy a central position to target (if you can be seen, you can be hit, and if you can be hit, you can be killed). But, with control of the Internet in the hands of corporations, we are playthings to their whims. People don't get access to information, their e-mails never get sent to where they sent them, non-profits like the one in the story as well as small businesses suffer... We all lose. Not that we should allow governments to control the Internet, either, or else they'll likely create a neck-crushing grip on what people can say and do on the Internet, attempting to make it so that no single person of any culture gets offended.
As U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell wrote: "As the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed, the Internet deserves the highest protection from governmental intrusion." (More quotes here, if you're interested, and no, it's not a real commercial site: www.cyberwolfman.com/quotes.htm)
Oops. I'm ranting again, aren't I? LOL
- CyberWoLfman
Cogent has a comparable Network, and Level 3 wants money.
I have never, had a problem with Cogent, as a CUSTOMER, not as a whiney complainer to their net op's.
2 years and running 1 connection issue that got resolved in 10 minutes. Now that is service. TimeWarner? Lets wait 2 days. Level 3? Lets not talk how long it takes them.
When i called Cogent about the situation, they explained down to detail. Level3 kept claiming it was a business decision, and when i told them that they need to rethink their position, i was told to give my information for submission to their legal counsel. I hope, for the sake of the Internet, Level 3's stock price plummets, they get delisted, and declare bankruptcy, so Cogent can buy them out. Then the end of the problem.
And being pre-warned about it, makes it even worse.
Two thumbs down for Cogent.
Cogent has a comparable Network, and Level 3 wants money.
I have never, had a problem with Cogent, as a CUSTOMER, not as a whiney complainer to their net op's.
2 years and running 1 connection issue that got resolved in 10 minutes. Now that is service. TimeWarner? Lets wait 2 days. Level 3? Lets not talk how long it takes them.
When i called Cogent about the situation, they explained down to detail. Level3 kept claiming it was a business decision, and when i told them that they need to rethink their position, i was told to give my information for submission to their legal counsel. I hope, for the sake of the Internet, Level 3's stock price plummets, they get delisted, and declare bankruptcy, so Cogent can buy them out. Then the end of the problem.
And being pre-warned about it, makes it even worse.
Two thumbs down for Cogent.
much invested in a smooth operating internet to allow this petty
BS to continue. If they want the Gov't to seize them and take
over, let them keep this blackout going.
There is no such thing as excess profits if you are in business
but stealth beats crude tricks like this. I'd rather have $.0001 or
less on every internet connection than risk losing the whole
thing.
Unbelieveable!
SEW
much invested in a smooth operating internet to allow this petty
BS to continue. If they want the Gov't to seize them and take
over, let them keep this blackout going.
There is no such thing as excess profits if you are in business
but stealth beats crude tricks like this. I'd rather have $.0001 or
less on every internet connection than risk losing the whole
thing.
Unbelieveable!
SEW
One of them are:
http://legalminds.lp.findlaw.com/list/cyberia-l/msg42080.html
One of them are:
http://legalminds.lp.findlaw.com/list/cyberia-l/msg42080.html
There would probably be no problem if there was an equal balance in the exchange of data over the two networks.
There would probably be no problem if there was an equal balance in the exchange of data over the two networks.
Level-3 3-5 Cogent
http://ahseng.blogsome.com
Level-3 3-5 Cogent
http://ahseng.blogsome.com
- Personally, I'd like to sue those involved
- by ericnn24 October 6, 2005 8:55 PM PDT
- My customers have been complaining they cannot reach our website to complete their orders and emails automatically generated to our shipping hub are being undelivered. This started yesterday and with no warning. I'm basically screwed.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (82 Comments)