[108992] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (michael.dillon@bt.com)
Mon Nov 3 08:55:49 2008
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 13:54:30 -0000
In-Reply-To: <99AE6285-0926-454F-9A84-13CF9737E4CA@ianai.net>
From: <michael.dillon@bt.com>
To: <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> Put another way, since _every_ network does this, if you do=20
> not want to buy from 'such networks', you cannot buy transit.
Let's put it another 'nother way.
Would an end user get better connectivity by buying from a=20
reseller of transit? In other words, buying transit from
a network which also buys transit. Presumably up near the
top of the chain (Tier 1 vicinity), that transit reseller
has a lot of peering in place with other folks in the same
neighborhood (Tier 1 vicinity). But as long as a network
is a transit reseller (i.e. they buy transit), then they
are less likely to suffer from partition events caused
by fractious peering negotiations.
--Michael Dillon
frac*tious (frakshus)
adj.
1. Inclined to make trouble; unruly.
2. Having a peevish nature; cranky.
Also likely to cause your network having connectivity
to only a fraction of the Internet.
