[106389] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Arbitrary de-peering
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Waites)
Mon Jul 28 11:25:08 2008
From: William Waites <ww@styx.org>
To: nancyp@yorku.ca
In-Reply-To: <1217257942.488de1d6b0ec0@mymail.yorku.ca>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 17:24:54 +0200
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Le 08-07-28 =E0 17:12, nancyp@yorku.ca a =E9crit :
> ----Example: A York University professor was sitting at his desk at =20=
> work in
> March 2008 trying to reach an internet website located somewhere in =20=
> Europe.
> [...] York=92s bandwidth supplier is Cogent which had severed a =20
> peering relationship
> with a bandwidth provider in Europe called Telia [...] which was the =20=
> bandwidth
> network provider for the website that the Professor was trying to =20
> reach. [...]
> Cogent did not proactively inform the University of the issue and =20
> the loss of
> connectivity. Unreachability due to arbitrariness in network peering =20=
> is unacceptable.
There must be more to this story. If Cogent de-peered from Telia the =20
traffic would
normally just have taken another path. Either there was a =20
configuration error of some
sort or else some sort of proactive black-holing on one side or the =20
other. As the
latter would be surprising and very heavy handed, I would tend to =20
suspect the former.
Peering relationships are made and severed all the time with no =20
particular ill-effects,
unless you can point to examples of outright malice (i.e. of the black-=20=
holing kind) I
don't think there is much basis for any public policy decisions in =20
this example.
Unreachability due to configuation error is of course relatively =20
common; perhaps I am
wrong, but I don't think the CRTC would really have much to say about =20=
that.
Cheers,
-w=
