nanog mailing list archives
Re: Peering versus Transit
From: Michael Dillon <michael () memra com>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 17:59:09 -0700 (PDT)
On Mon, 30 Sep 1996, Vadim Antonov wrote:
You should always add "without consent of the said ISP". It is no different from dumping a pile of bricks at somebody's property. Are bricks useful? You bet. Will it get you dragged in court on charges trespassing and defacing the property? Sure as hell.
What if you are FlyBite Couriers Inc. and you have a parcel for Bigco Inc's art department. The sign on the door at BigCo says "No deliveries, go to the back door, this means you!". But you are to lazy so you walk in, argue with the receptionist for a minute and dump your package on the floor. She has to call in one of the mailroom people from the far end of the building complex to deliver the package.
It is not a "theft", it is more like trespassing. It is illegal and covered by codes related to unauthorized use of equipment.
FlyBite Couriers has caused Bigco to spend their own resources in order to deliver the package to teh art department. Is FlyBite Couriers guilty of theft? No. Are they guilty of trespass? I don't think so. Even though the sign did seem to indicate that they are not authorised to deliver their package at the front door, I think you would have a hard time convincing a court that they made unauthorised use of the front door and reception area. Of course, this is just *ONE* possible scenario. Some other scenarios mentioned here are much clearer than this one.
One technical reason is pretty obvious -- it is called "traffic engineering". Large ISPs often use nudged routing advertisements as means to balance load between peering points. That assumes that nobody is sending unsolicited traffic.
This makes good sense too. However, there are always two sides to every traffic engineeriung question... WebbFarms ----Sprint--------+--------------------- Exchange ---FlyBitNet | | +----MCI-------------------------------+ Although I am using the names Sprint and MCI here I do not mean to imply anything about those specific comapnies; they are just a handy way of referring to Big NSP A and Big NSP B without getting things too mixed up. Now FlyBit Networks has a T1 to MCI and a DS3 to the XP. From their traffic engineering point of view it makes sense to send the traffic for WebbFarms straight into Sprint at the XP. But Sprint's traffic engineers want to offload traffic from the XP and get it through a private interconnect with MCI.
Current thread:
- Re: Peering versus Transit, (continued)
- Re: Peering versus Transit Matt Zimmerman (Sep 30)
- Re: Peering versus Transit Jeff Young (Sep 30)
- Re: Peering versus Transit Matthew Kaufman (Sep 30)
- Re: Peering versus Transit Sean Doran (Sep 30)
- Re: Peering versus Transit Barney Wolff (Sep 30)
- Re: Peering versus Transit Dorian R. Kim (Sep 30)
- Re: Peering versus Transit Dorian R. Kim (Sep 30)
- Re: Peering versus Transit Dorian R. Kim (Sep 30)
- Re: Peering versus Transit Barney Wolff (Sep 30)
- Re: Peering versus Transit William Allen Simpson (Sep 30)
- Re: Peering versus Transit Vadim Antonov (Sep 30)
- Re: Peering versus Transit Michael Dillon (Sep 30)
- Re: Peering versus Transit maillists (Sep 30)
- Re: Peering versus Transit Bill Woodcock (Sep 30)
- Re: Peering versus Transit Alex.Bligh (Sep 30)
- Re: Peering versus Transit Matt Zimmerman (Sep 30)
- Re: Peering versus Transit Vadim Antonov (Sep 30)
- Re: Peering versus Transit maillists (Sep 30)
- Re: Peering versus Transit Vadim Antonov (Sep 30)
- Re: Peering versus Transit Vadim Antonov (Sep 30)
- Re: Peering versus Transit Vadim Antonov (Sep 30)
- Re: Peering versus Transit maillists (Sep 30)
(Thread continues...)