Friday, October 14, 2005

Blackout Shows Net's Fragility

By John Borland
Staff Writer, CNET

A correction was made to this story. Read below for details.
Since early Wednesday, Phil Bradham, the network engineer at Boston's Museum of Fine Arts, has been cut off from the parts of the Internet he needs the most.

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

Correction: This story incorrectly stated the day Phil Bradham began having difficulties accessing his Web site. The problem began Wednesday.

Continued ...



Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home