North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

i think the cogent depeering thing is a myth of some kind

  • From: Paul Vixie
  • Date: Fri Sep 28 18:55:30 2007 
at <http://www.e-gerbil.net/cogent-t1r> there is a plain text document with
the following HTTP headers:

	Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:56:34 GMT
	Server: Apache/2.2.3 (Unix) PHP/5.2.3
	Last-Modified: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:15:53 GMT
	ETag: "92c1e1-a85-43b36ea5bcc40"
	Content-Length: 2693
	Content-Type: text/plain

the plain text title is:

	Cogent shows hypocrisy with de-peering policy

the plain text authorship is ascribed to:

	Dan Golding

the first plain text assertion that caught my eye was:

	Cogent, has, in fact, de-peered other Internet networks in the last 24
	hours, including content-delivery network Limelight Networks and
	wholesale transit provider nLayer Communications, along with several
	European networks.

since i appear to be reaching the aforementioned web server by a path that
includes cogent-to-nlayer, i think this part of the plain text is inaccurate.

traceroute to www.e-gerbil.net (69.31.1.2), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets
 1  rc-main.f1.sql1.isc.org (204.152.187.254)  0.336 ms
 2  149.20.48.65 (149.20.48.65)  0.509 ms
 3  gig-0-1-0-606.r2.sfo2.isc.org (149.20.65.3)  1.163 ms
 4  g0-8.core02.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.11.177)  2.757 ms
 5  t4-2.mpd01.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.2.89)  2.958 ms
 6  g3-0-0.core02.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.3.117)  2.525 ms
 7  p6-0.core01.sjc04.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.234)  4.183 ms
 8  g3-3.ar1.pao1.us.nlayer.net (69.22.153.21)  2.637 ms
 9  ge-2-1-1.cr1.sfo1.us.nlayer.net (69.22.143.161)  3.806 ms
10  so-0-2-0.cr1.ord1.us.nlayer.net (69.22.142.77)  69.022 ms
11  60.po1.ar1.ord1.us.nlayer.net (69.31.111.130)  69.491 ms
12  0.tge4-4.ar1.iad1.us.nlayer.net (69.22.142.113)  81.580 ms
...

the second plain text assertion which caught my eye was:

	Why is this happening? There are a few possibilities. First, Cogent
	may simply want revenue from the networks it has de-peered, in the
	form of Internet transit. Of course, few de-peered networks are
	willing to fork over cash to those that have rejected them. Another
	possibility is that Cogent is seeing threats from other peers
	regarding its heavy outbound ratios, and it seeks to disconnect
	Limelight and other content-heavy peers to help balance those ratios
	out.

this makes no sense, since dan golding would know that cogent's other peers
would not be seeing traffic via cogent from the allegedly de-peered peers.

so, i think the document is a hoax of some kind.  (i saw it mentioned here.)