nanog mailing list archives
RE: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts
From: <michael.dillon () bt com>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 17:33:08 -0000
The concept of "Transit Free" is a political failure, not atechnicalone.We disagree.
Perhaps some examples are needed? If you drive in a screw with a big hammer, the end result is not pleasing. For one, a screw will not have the holding power of a nail. For another, the screw and the hammer are both likely to damage the objects being attached. Nevertheless, you would be hardpressed to say that this is a technical failure. A wise person could have imposed the policy of always using screwdrivers to drive in a screw, and to only drive in nails when using a hammer. Same technology, different results. In the case of peering arrangements, the term "transit free" hides a multitude of sins. It is pure spin, dreamed up by marketing people back in the 90's when the Big Five ISPs were trying to control the market and make it hard for competitors to gain mythical Tier 1 status. In the end, everyone drank the koolaid and the whole arena of network operations has been poisoned by it. Has anyone heard of a backup route? With a longer path so it is never used unless there is a real emergency? Why was there no backup route available to carry the Sprint <-> Cogent traffic? Because there was a political failure in both Sprint and Cogent. Back in 2000 it was acceptable for the big New York banks to have all their eggs in one basket in central Manhattan. In 2002, it was no longer acceptable. Do we really need a 911 magnitude of disaster on the Internet for people to wake up and smell the coffee? The Internet is no longer a kewl tool built and operated by the cognoscenti to meet their own interests. It is now part of every nation's and everbody's critical infrastructure. It needs to be engineered and operated better so that it does not end up partitioning for dumb reasons. --Michael Dillon
Current thread:
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts, (continued)
- 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)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Valdis . Kletnieks (Nov 04)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Larry Sheldon (Nov 04)