nanog mailing list archives
Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 08:09:28 -0500
On Nov 3, 2008, at 2:35 AM, Paul Wall wrote:
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 1:26 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick () ianai net> wrote:1. Neither Sprint nor Cogent have transitBoth Sprint & Cogent are transit-free networks. (Notice how I carefullyavoided saying "tier one"?)How do you explain Cogent's arrangement with NTT (AS 2914)? If it's not transit, what is it?
I do not know, and neither do you. But I do know it is not "transit", at least not to Sprint.
It is trivial to prove to yourself if Cogent has transit. Find me any AS path in the global table showing "_TF1_TF2_174_", there "TF1" and "TF2" are the ASNs of two of the other 13 transit free networks. (Modulo a few leaked prefixes, which always seem to crop up. For instance, if a network has 40K prefixes in its cone, showing O(10) paths is not proof.)
This is a positive test - if you see it, you know they have transit, if you do not see it, you do not know they do not have transit. But combined with bifurcation when Sprint drops peering to Cogent, one can _know_ Cogent does not have full transit, or partial transit to Sprint. It is possible (although I personally believe unlikely) Cogent has partial transit to some other transit free network that you cannot see right now because their peering to that network is up and overriding the AS paths in the global table. But that doesn't matter to this discussion.
Does Akamai have peering arrangements with Cogent directly?
That is none of your business, not to mention completely irrelevant to the topic at hand as Akamai is neither a network nor transit free.
-- TTFN, patrick
Current thread:
- Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Patrick W. Gilmore (Nov 02)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Paul Wall (Nov 02)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Charles Gucker (Nov 03)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Charles Gucker (Nov 03)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Patrick W. Gilmore (Nov 03)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Nicolas Antoniello (Nov 03)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Jeff Aitken (Nov 03)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Charles Gucker (Nov 03)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Paul Wall (Nov 02)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Florian Weimer (Nov 03)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Valdis . Kletnieks (Nov 03)
- RE: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts David Schwartz (Nov 03)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Florian Weimer (Nov 03)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Patrick W. Gilmore (Nov 03)
- RE: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts michael.dillon (Nov 03)
- "Tier 1" vs. all. Was: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Eric Van Tol (Nov 03)
- Re: "Tier 1" vs. all. Was: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Marshall Eubanks (Nov 03)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Valdis . Kletnieks (Nov 03)