nanog mailing list archives
RE: COVID-19 vs. peering wars
From: Steve Mikulasik via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 14:31:09 +0000
In Canada the CRTC really needs to get on Canadian ISPs about peering very liberally at IXs in each province. I know of one major institution right now that would have a major work from home issue resolved if one big ISP would peer with one big tier 1 in the IX they are both located at in the same province. Instead traffic needs to flow across the country or to the USA to get back to the same city. From: NANOG <nanog-bounces () nanog org> On Behalf Of Matthew Petach Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2020 4:15 PM To: Mike Bolitho <mikebolitho () gmail com> Cc: NANOG <nanog () nanog org> Subject: COVID-19 vs. peering wars CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Civeo. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 10:27 AM Mike Bolitho <mikebolitho () gmail com<mailto:mikebolitho () gmail com>> wrote: Restoration: The repair or returning to service of one or more telecommunications services that have experienced a service outage or are unusable for any reason, including a damaged or impaired telecommunications facility. Such repair or returning to service may be done by patching, rerouting, substitution of component parts or pathways, and other means, as determined necessary by a service vendor. https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OEC%20TSP%20Operations%20Guide%20Final%2012062016_FINAL%20508C.pdf<https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OEC%20TSP%20Operations%20Guide%20Final%2012062016_FINAL%20508C.pdf> My understanding, and what we did while I worked for a Tier I ISP, was that even for degraded circuits we had to do everything in our power to restore to full operations. If capacity is an issue and causes TSP coded DIA circuits to be unusable then that falls under the "any reason" clause of that line. - Mike Bolitho If you're going to bang that drum, the place you're going to get the most buck-for-your-bang is using it to force better cooperation between ISPs. It appears that baking cakes was not sufficient to get recalcitrant players to work together. https://www.flickr.com/photos/mpetach/4031195041<https://www.flickr.com/photos/mpetach/4031195041> Perhaps a global pandemic may be sufficient to have government begin to *compel* networks to interconnect at locations at which they share common peering infrastructure? If you're worried about congestion and performance, that would be the place to start pushing. Matt staying safely at home away from the flame-fest that may ensue from this. ^_^;
Current thread:
- Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks, (continued)
- Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks Mark Tinka (Mar 20)
- Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks Mike Hammett (Mar 20)
- Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks Mark Tinka (Mar 20)
- Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks Tom Beecher (Mar 19)
- Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks Mike Bolitho (Mar 19)
- Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks Tom Beecher (Mar 19)
- Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks Mike Bolitho (Mar 19)
- Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks Tom Beecher (Mar 19)
- COVID-19 vs. peering wars Matthew Petach (Mar 19)
- Re: COVID-19 vs. peering wars Matt Erculiani (Mar 19)
- RE: COVID-19 vs. peering wars Steve Mikulasik via NANOG (Mar 20)
- Re: COVID-19 vs. peering wars Sadiq Saif (Mar 20)
- RE: COVID-19 vs. peering wars Adam Thompson (Mar 20)
- Re: COVID-19 vs. peering wars Matthew Petach (Mar 20)
- RE: COVID-19 vs. peering wars Adam Thompson (Mar 23)
- Re: COVID-19 vs. peering wars Bradley Huffaker (Mar 23)
- Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks Mark Tinka (Mar 19)
- Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks Mark Tinka (Mar 19)