Re: routing around Sprint's depeering damage

[HRH Sven Olaf Prinz von CyberBunker-Kamphuis MP <sven () cyberbunker com>]

> No, but the providers who provide those connections should be multihomed.
> If they're not, I'd consider switching providers.  Simple as that.
>
> jms

multihomed to whichever parties decide to generate split ups on purpose
in the intarrwebbz.. meaning: all of them.. (you can never tell which ones
will get the idea to depeer next, so you have to be multihomed to all of
them or this can still happen)

-this- time its sprint and cogent, next time it could be level3 and
sprint, etc, now, do you want to multihome on all of them, just to avoid
problems when they purposely and actively break the internet, or would you
rather just tell them not to do it..

what should happen here is their customers just enforcing a contract
change that they contractually have to make every possible effort to peer with
anyone or the customers leave...

you can buy shares in both companies, so its also possible to cause a
riot at their shareholders meeting if this is a major problem to your
connectivity, and tell them never to do that again.

> X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "nanog"