Cogent Internet users
 

Has anyone felt any of this? Just looking for proper feedback, thanks. :thumbsup

http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/20...k-the-internet

Nope.... no one on Sprint surfs for porn...

not the first time... :)

It won't be the last either....I guess for now if a surfer has sprint anywhere in his connection route to the net he cant give you his money if you use cogent at all...:helpme

Feedback is appreciated. Thanks!

Sprint had already re-established peering with Cogent prior to you writing this post.

From http://www.sprint.net/cogent.php
"On Thursday, October 30th, Sprint Nextel completed a disconnection of its network from Cogent Communications. This action was taken by Sprint after Cogent breached its contract and failed to pay for its ongoing connection to the Sprint network, despite repeated collections attempts by Sprint.
Until this issue is resolved, Sprint will continue to work tirelessly to the extent within our control to mitigate the effects on customers. As part of an interim solution, Sprint initiated a temporary reconnection to the Cogent network on Sunday, November 2nd so that customers would have temporary access while longer-term alternate and permanent access options are explored."

alpha red was a major user of cogent (their largest customer i think)... read that as you may... :2 cents:

Super,

Thanks for that. I did not get that flash. Much appreciated. I only ask because I still have some servers on a cogent backbone. I did not notice any problems so was just looking for proper feedback. Thanks again. Cheers!

:thumbsup

Yes, because the corporate types at Sprint spend the majority of their board meeting time talking about AlphaRed. If anything the lack of AR bandwidth hitting Sprint's network would have been in Cogent's favor.

There are a number of very informative discussions taking place regarding this dispute in the networking circles, no need to be pulling out your "Jump to Conclusions" mat with the AlphaRed tripe. If you have any concerns about your host's connectivity to Sprint or Cogent, get ahold of them and see what they have to say.

Yup,

You got it right. I have a server still with Alpha red and riding out the storm, but an exit plan for that server is already in effect. Did not want to mention any names but there are no secrets here on this board. Thanks again. :upsidedow

No problem, the US government has a number of site's single homed on Cogent too, and if I were to break out my "Jump to Conclusions" mat, I would say that alone would have been enough for Sprint to get the packets flowing again.

Cogent is behind on paying it's peering contract.. So, losing a big customer and being behind on it's bill obviously couldn't be related... :1orglaugh

Yes, a big customer that would be pushing bandwidth THE WRONG WAY on Sprint's network is why they were depeered. "Oh hey, Cogent is sending us less traffic now, let's depeer them". Sorry, that's not how the internet works.

If you don't understand how peering works, please keep your retarded AR theories to yourself. This had/has everything to do with "business" and nothing to do with "the internet" or AlphaRed.

I do understand how peering works. And after reading the full issue, I stand corrected. Sprint and Cogent had/have a free peer agreement, not a pay peer agreement, so money has nothing to do with this..

So, you were correct and I was wrong..

If you understand how peering works, how could you for one moment assume, or even think AlphaRed had anything to do with it?

Sprint's statement very well sums up what transpired:

SPRINT STATEMENT TO CUSTOMERS ON ITS DEPEERING WITH COGENT COMMUNICATIONS



Dear Valued Customers,



On Thursday, October 30th, Sprint Nextel completed a disconnection of its network from Cogent Communications. This action was taken by Sprint after Cogent breached its contract and failed to pay for its ongoing connection to the Sprint network, despite repeated collections attempts by Sprint.



Until this issue is resolved, Sprint will continue to work tirelessly to the extent within our control to mitigate the effects on customers. As part of an interim solution, Sprint initiated a temporary reconnection to the Cogent network on Sunday, November 2nd so that customers would have temporary access while longer-term alternate and permanent access options are explored.



We emphasize that this reconnection is temporary only, as the core issues in this dispute have not changed. Cogent was notified in advance of the November 2nd reconnection; therefore, any access disruptions occurring during this temporary period are the sole result of a negative reaction instigated by Cogent against the customers of both parties.



Sprint deeply regrets any inconvenience caused by this issue and we do not take our actions lightly given frustrations experienced by customers of both parties.



Background



In 2006, Cogent sought a peering trial agreement in the hopes that it would lead to settlement-free peering status with Sprint. Settlement-free peering is a contractual relationship in which two companies exchange Internet traffic without charging each other. This arrangement is only fair if the two parties exchange roughly equal volumes of traffic across the two networks. Prior to this trial period, Cogent utilized third parties for full Internet connectivity.



Following a three-month commercial trial agreement during June - September 2007, the peering trial data indicated that Cogent did not meet the minimum traffic exchange criteria agreed to by both parties. As a result, settlement-free peering was not established and Cogent was notified in writing of these results. Despite this fact, and after repeated discussions, Cogent failed to disconnect itself from the Sprint network or compensate Sprint for the ongoing connection.



Sprint has repeatedly notified Cogent in writing of payment past due and our intent to take action if the issue was left unresolved. On September 2nd of this year, Sprint filed a lawsuit against Cogent for breach of contract. Sprint also notified Cogent in writing of our intent to begin disconnect procedures if Cogent did not pay for services or voluntarily disconnect and make arrangements with one of many alternate providers. Throughout this period, which includes the initial disconnect activities, Cogent did nothing to mitigate the potential effects of Sprint's pending disconnect to its customers.



Fact and Fiction



On October 30th, Cogent issued a press release and has made subsequent statements to the media that contain a number of distortions regarding the relationship between Sprint and Cogent. The following is intended to clarify these misstatements:



Cogent press release: "On October 30 at 4:30 pm Sprint-Nextel severed its Internet connection to Cogent thereby partitioning the Internet."



FACT: The events of October 30th related only to disconnection of the final two interconnects (of 10 original interconnections) between Sprint and Cogent. In addition to notifying Cogent 30 days in advance of our intent to disconnect, Sprint's first disconnect action took place on October 7th, 2008. Between October 7th and October 30th, Sprint disconnected one or two ports each week with Cogent's full awareness. During this period, Cogent failed to take any action in support of its own customers' ongoing Internet reachability even though such actions were fully under its control.



Cogent press release: "Sprint [severed its Internet connection to Cogent] in violation of a contractual obligation to exchange traffic with Cogent on a settlement free peering basis."



FACT: At no time did Sprint and Cogent enter into a contract for settlement free peering. In 2006, Sprint and Cogent formed a commercial trial agreement that ended in September 2007. Cogent was unable to satisfy the agreed-upon traffic exchange criteria within the trial agreement, yet refused to pay Sprint or disconnect from Sprint's network.



Cogent press release: "Sprint and Cogent are engaged in litigation over this matter. Cogent regrets that Sprint chose to take this unilateral action rather than await a determination by the court as to the rights of the parties."



FACT: Sprint filed a lawsuit on September 2nd in Fairfax County, VA Circuit Court against Cogent for breach of contract due to Cogent's refusal to pay Sprint for the ongoing connection to our network. Sprint also provided Cogent with 30 days advance written notice in the hope that Cogent would take action to mitigate the impact of this action on our respective customers.



Cogent press release: "Cogent remains ready to reestablish, on the same settlement free basis as previously existed, the connections that Sprint has severed."



FACT: As noted above, Sprint and Cogent did not enter into a settlement free peering agreement. Instead, the two companies entered into a commercial trial agreement, upon which Cogent did not meet the minimum traffic exchange criteria agreed to by both parties.

Nevermind.. it was a pay to peer contract afterall...

but appears to be pre AR, so you were still right in the fact that AR had nothing to do with this..

BTW, I am eager to see Cogents next 1/4 report to see how much revenue was impacted as a result of AR..

Thanks for clearing this up Brad... :thumbsup

Yes Brad, thank you for pasting the text of the link I already posted in the thread. Thank goodness you are here to bring the information to the masses.

Noted and Appreciated.

Thanks Brad. We have met but I don't think you remember that time. It was in Vegas about 5 years back. Thanks again to everyone's feedback. :thumbsup