Re: Arbitrary de-peering

[William Waites <ww () styx org>]

Le 08-07-28 à 18:27, Jon Lewis a écrit :

> Bit bucket path.

Evidently.

> > As I said, this is surprising behaviour, but not simple de-peering.  
> > And I'm
>
> Why is it surprising?  Sounds more like a repeat performance to me.
>
> Back when Level3 depeered Cogent, it was said that Cogent was  
> already buying transit from Verio to reach at least some networks  
> they weren't peering with.  After the depeering, why didn't Cogent  
> get to Level3 (and vice versa) via Verio?

Surprising because, Cogent (or Telia, but from what you say here,  
looks like Cogent),
presumably put themselves in a breach of contract position with their  
(end-user or stub
AS) customers who one would imagine have bought "Internet service"  
from them. Given
that they have some reasonably big/important customers it is  
surprising that they would
take that risk, and even more surprising that it didn't bite them too  
hard. By maybe I am
just easily surprised.

> > Tier 1 has enough peering relationships with enough other Tier 1  
> > networks that they can always buy temporary transit privileges over  
> > an existing link.
>
> Tier 1 means you don't buy transit, no?

Maybe a slightly revised definition of Tier 1 is in order -- a  
provider that doesn't buy transit
and doesn't sell to end-users or stub systems. Doing either of these  
things would degrade
them in the nomenclature by 0.5. Doing both of these things makes a  
Tier 2 provider which
had better have transit from more than one upstream. This way  
innocents don't suffer the
collateral damage from games of chicken among the titans (unless they  
were silly enough
to get their only Internet connection from a Tier 1.5 provider). Oh  
well.

Cheers,
-w