nanog mailing list archives
Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts
From: Florian Weimer <fw () deneb enyo de>
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 20:01:05 +0100
* Valdis Kletnieks:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 10:26:59 +0100, Florian Weimer said:* Patrick W. Gilmore:3. Standard transit contracts do not guarantee full connectivityIf this were true, why would end users (or, more generally, not significantly multi-homed networks) buy transit from such networks?Quite frankly, if any potential transit provider tried to make noises about being able to *guarantee* full connectivity, I'd show him the door.
Obviously, nothing won't stop them from disconnecting customers which are not sufficiently multi-homed, which might adversely affect me, independently of the size of the disconnected network or the nature of the dispute. That being said, there's a difference between disconnecting a customer and making sure, through action or inaction, that their network is no longer reachable from yours. I'd need to litigate to be sure, but I think the latter actually violates contracts we have at work.
Consider the average length of an AS path.
Well, in this context, the affected AS paths are really, really short. 8-)
Now consider that your AS is at one end, your transit provider is the next hop - and there's often 5 or 6 or more AS hops past that. And that potential transit provider has absolutely *no* control over what some backhoe just did to connectivity 4 AS down the path...
There's a difference between random events such as backhoes and self-inflicting damage as the result of DSWs.
For example, look at the traceroute from my desktop to where your mail originated:
I expect LF.net to isolate me from the results of those wars, both by making the right decisions in advance, and to act to correct problems when they arise. This hasn't always been possible. For instance, during one of the European routing wars in the 90s, I couldn't reach ftp.funet.fi for a couple of days.
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)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Stephen Sprunk (Nov 03)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Tore Anderson (Nov 03)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Patrick W. Gilmore (Nov 03)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Tore Anderson (Nov 03)