> anybody know who "blinked" first Cogent or OT ????


I would assume it was OT that decided to drop Cogent because they're the ones that get treated like crap by all the other carriers.

---

> > anybody know who "blinked" first Cogent or OT ????
>
>
> I would assume it was OT that decided to drop Cogent because they're the ones
> that get treated like crap by all the other carriers.

I think the question is: who lost? Who backed down? Did Cogent agree to do something to make OpenTransport happy, or did OpenTransport just get enough complaints that they gave up?

---

> anybody know who "blinked" first Cogent or OT ????

Is it so important to "know" ?
The best think for all users is that everything is working well now...

---

> Is it so important to "know" ?
> The best think for all users is that everything is working well now...

Actually, yes. ;-)

---

> > anybody know who "blinked" first Cogent or OT ????
>
> Is it so important to "know" ?
> The best think for all users is that everything is working well now...

For potential Cogent and/or France Telecom customers, yes.

---

Good news in short term....but a real vulnerability for the Internet long term. I'm not sure if licences granted to run these networks by state governments includes interconnectivity guarantees so that the public are not exposed. If they do not then they should. I will make enquiries here the UK to see what the regulator's take is on this.

---

> Good news in short term....but a real vulnerability for the Internet long
> term. I'm not sure if licences granted to run these networks by state
> governments includes interconnectivity guarantees so that the public are not
> exposed. If they do not then they should. I will make enquiries here the UK to
> see what the regulator's take is on this.

Hopefully, we won't get regulators (or regulations) on this one.

It's currently a cross between a "gentleman's agreement" and market forces.

Once upon a time, UUnet was the best because their universal answer to peering was "sure, be glad to!" -- they got pickier later.

Peering is good, because better connectivity is worth more money.

Market forces probably prevailed here.

---

Market forces probably prevailed here.
Usually RIAA forces... :-(

---

> Good news in short term....but a real vulnerability for the Internet long
> term. I'm not sure if licences granted to run these networks by state
> governments includes interconnectivity guarantees so that the public are not
> exposed. If they do not then they should. I will make enquiries here the UK to
> see what the regulator's take is on this.


AFAIK, there are no licenses to operate an internet carrier. Perhaps there are in some non-business friendly countries. However, this definately not something governments should be regulating. Vote with your dollars and get a different carrier.

---

> Good news in short term....but a real vulnerability for the Internet long
> term. I'm not sure if licences granted to run these networks by state
> governments includes interconnectivity guarantees so that the public are not
> exposed. If they do not then they should. I will make enquiries here the UK to
> see what the regulator's take is on this.


AFAIK, there are no licenses to operate an internet carrier. Perhaps there are in some non-business friendly countries. However, this definately not something governments should be regulating. Vote with your dollars and get a different carrier.

---

I am in the UK and i have lots of WU to upload and need new one's I can't connect what's the fix? PS i know nothing about networking or proxy's keep the answer simple please.

---

> I am in the UK and i have lots of WU to upload and need new one's I can't
> connect what's the fix? PS i know nothing about networking or proxy's keep the
> answer simple please.
>
I don't think it has anything to do anything with your connection. Other people are experiencing the same problems.

Take a look at this thread:

http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=14178

> > I am in the UK and i have lots of WU to upload and need new one's I
> can't
> > connect what's the fix? PS i know nothing about networking or proxy's
> keep the
> > answer simple please.
> >
> I don't think it has anything to do anything with your connection. Other
> people are experiencing the same problems.
>
> Take a look at this thread:
>
> http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=14178
>
>

I took a peep at the thread but am sill no wiser.
I did Trace route to setiboincdata.ssl.berkeley.edu [66.28.250.125]
heres the results as you can see i still can't connect.

1 28 ms 27 ms 38 ms lo0-plusnet.pth-ag3.plus.net [195.166.128.64]
2 27 ms 27 ms 26 ms gi1-2.802.pth-gw4.plus.net [84.92.2.14]
3 27 ms 28 ms 26 ms ge1-0-0-23.ptn-gw1.plus.net [212.159.4.17]
4 41 ms 41 ms 41 ms 195.66.226.185
5 101 ms 99 ms 99 ms p10-0.core01.bos01.atlas.cogentco.com [130.117.0.46]
6 118 ms 117 ms 118 ms p5-0.core01.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com [66.28.4.110]
7 167 ms 167 ms 166 ms p5-0.core01.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com [66.28.4.185]
8 169 ms 168 ms 168 ms g0-1.na01.b003123-1.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com [66.28.6.2]
9 328 ms 253 ms 270 ms UC-Berkeley.demarc.cogentco.com [66.250.4.74]
10 * * * Request timed out.
11 * * * Request timed out.
12 * * * Request timed out.
13 * * * Request timed out.
14 * * * Request timed out.
15 * * * Request timed out.

---

[b]$[/b]traceroute setiboincdata.ssl.berkeley.edu
[b]traceroute to setiboincdata.ssl.berkeley.edu
     (66.28.250.125), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
 1  10.32.19.1
     (10.32.19.1)  8.055 ms  10.538 ms  8.669 ms
 2  130.81.11.161
     (130.81.11.161)  8.551 ms  9.018 ms  43.426 ms
 3  so-6-0-0-0.bb-rtr2.ny325.verizon-gni.net
     (130.81.18.90)  9.414 ms  9.85 ms  9.311 ms
 4  so-7-0-0-0.peer-rtr1.ny111.verizon-gni.net
     (130.81.17.131)  57.431 ms  32.822 ms  52.287 ms
 5  so-2-0-0-0.peer-rtr2.ny111.verizon-gni.net
     (130.81.4.2)  8.655 ms  10.194 ms  9.086 ms
 6  130.81.15.14
     (130.81.15.14)  8.324 ms  8.703 ms  8.777 ms
 7  p9-0.core02.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com
     (154.54.1.129)  9.536 ms  43.29 ms  9.228 ms
 8  p10-0.core02.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com
     (66.28.4.209)  90.841 ms  88.285 ms  92.835 ms
 9  g0-2.na01.b003123-1.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com
     (66.28.6.6)  89.128 ms  124.705 ms  266.918 ms
10  uc-berkeley.demarc.cogentco.com
     (66.250.4.74)  103.548 ms  94.347 ms  95.086 ms
11  * * *[/b]...

Same deal.

I dunno if this counts as an enticement to fix the problem, but I'll be downloading BOINC Manager and testing it for compatibility at the Apple Store right after the installation of Tiger is done... wouldn't wanna β without some WUs...

---

Same problem here. Cannot connect to SETI. I´m located in Germany. Climate and Einstein are working fine.

---

Also have this problem (conected germany over colt)

6 15 ms 14 ms 15 ms pos1-0-scooby.fra.router.colt.net [212.74.65.53]

7 16 ms 14 ms 14 ms po1-0.core01.fra03.atlas.cogentco.com [80.81.192
.63]
8 109 ms 110 ms 107 ms p10-0.core02.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.1.
17]
9 116 ms 116 ms 117 ms p6-0.core01.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com [66.28.4.82
]
10 115 ms 116 ms 116 ms p15-0.core02.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com [66.28.4.1
4]
11 182 ms 182 ms 182 ms p10-0.core02.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com [66.28.4.2
09]
12 186 ms 185 ms 182 ms g0-2.na01.b003123-1.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com [66
.28.6.6]
13 188 ms 188 ms 188 ms uc-berkeley.demarc.cogentco.com [66.250.4.74]
14 * * *

OK. I mailed the network support people at Berkeley just to let them know about this problem - they probably know already but just to make sure. An unwelcome start to their day I guess.

---

Nobody is connecting to SETI not just the europe problems
5:37 am at berkeley

---

Unsuccessfully tried all proxies listed on:
http://www.iantighe.com/boincers.htm

Here's my traceroute info:
traceroute setiboinc.ssl.berkeley.edu
traceroute to setiboincdata.ssl.berkeley.edu (66.28.250.125), 30 hops max, 46 byte packets
1 cmts (62.145.192.1) 96.537 ms 176.237 ms 152.142 ms
2 athome-gw (62.145.212.1) 255.195 ms 121.368 ms 256.986 ms
3 bb2-ge9-0-2.amsix-telecity.home.nl (213.51.158.141) 121.813 ms 161.666 ms 232.164 ms
4 r3-ge1-1-0.amsix-sara.home.nl (213.51.158.31) 398.913 ms 93.250 ms 73.720 ms
5 g0-2-228.core01.ams03.atlas.cogentco.com (130.117.0.37) 90.756 ms 320.796 ms 207.292 ms
6 p5-0.core01.lon02.atlas.cogentco.com (130.117.1.225) 53.048 ms 45.317 ms 49.373 ms
7 p10-0.core01.bos01.atlas.cogentco.com (130.117.0.46) 214.387 ms 204.720 ms 278.207 ms
8 * p5-0.core01.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.110) 727.087 ms 150.771 ms
9 p5-0.core01.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.185) 216.522 ms 360.282 ms *
10 g0-1.na01.b003123-1.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.6.2) 564.510 ms 195.012 ms 245.185 ms
11 * UC-Berkeley.demarc.cogentco.com (66.250.4.74) 404.803 ms 458.563 ms
12 * * *

---

Same problem here in Scotland thought it was just me :)

---