nanog mailing list archives
Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 11:09:31 -0500
On Nov 4, 2008, at 11:02 AM, David Schwartz wrote:
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:On Nov 4, 2008, at 9:49 AM, David Freedman wrote:2. The Internet cannot "route around" de-peering I know everyone believes "the Internet routes around failures". While occasionally true, it does not hold in this case. To "route around" the "failure" would require transit. See item #1.The internet "routes around" technical failures, not political ones.If two transit free networks have a technical failure which disables all peering between them, the Internet cannot route around it.Sure it can. The traffic just flows through any of the providers that stillhave reliable high-bandwidth connectivity to both of those providers.Unless, of course, a pre-existing political failure prohibits this traffic.The Internet can't route around that political failure.
Perhaps you missed the "transit free" part.If Sprint & UUNET have a technical failure causing all peering to go down, Level 3 will not magically transport packets between the two, despite the fact L3 has "reliable high-bandwidth connectivity to both of those providers". How would you propose L3 bill UU & Sprint for it? On second thought, don't answer that, I don't think it would be a useful discussion.
Or are you claiming the fact every network does not give every other network transit a "political failure". If you are, we should agree to disagree and move on.
From a technical standpoint, the Internet is always suffering from multiple political failures. This leaves it vulnerable to small technical failures itcould otherwise route around.
See above. I do not think it is a "political failure" that I do not give you free transit.
-- TTFN, patrick
Current thread:
- RE: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts, (continued)
- RE: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Rod Beck (Nov 03)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Dave Israel (Nov 03)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Patrick W. Gilmore (Nov 03)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Joe Greco (Nov 03)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Leo Bicknell (Nov 03)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts George William Herbert (Nov 03)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Patrick W. Gilmore (Nov 03)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts David Freedman (Nov 04)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Patrick W. Gilmore (Nov 04)
- RE: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts David Schwartz (Nov 04)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Patrick W. Gilmore (Nov 04)
- RE: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Tomas L. Byrnes (Nov 04)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Patrick W. Gilmore (Nov 04)
- RE: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts michael.dillon (Nov 04)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Paul Vixie (Nov 05)
- RE: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts michael.dillon (Nov 05)
- RE: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Church, Charles (Nov 05)
- RE: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts david raistrick (Nov 05)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Kraig Beahn (Nov 06)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Patrick W. Gilmore (Nov 04)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Lamar Owen (Nov 04)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Niels Bakker (Nov 04)