nanog mailing list archives
RE: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts
From: "Tomas L. Byrnes" <tomb () byrneit net>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 08:51:19 -0800
The concept of "Transit Free" is a political failure, not a technical one. The protocols are designed, and the original concept behind the Internet is, to propagate all reachability via all paths. IE to use Transit if peering fails. Not doing so is a policy decision that breaks the redundancy in the original design.
-----Original Message----- From: Patrick W. Gilmore [mailto:patrick () ianai net] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 8:10 AM To: NANOG list Subject: Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts 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 still have 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 it could 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 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)
- Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts Valdis . Kletnieks (Nov 04)