[109062] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Schwartz)
Tue Nov 4 11:04:15 2008
From: "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com>
To: "NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 08:02:57 -0800
In-Reply-To: <39296E61-4018-47DF-8635-3C480D738D13@ianai.net>
X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: nanog@nanog.org
Reply-To: davids@webmaster.com
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
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.
>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.
DS
