[109068] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Niels Bakker)
Tue Nov 4 12:30:42 2008
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 18:30:08 +0100
From: Niels Bakker <niels=nanog@bakker.net>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <70D072392E56884193E3D2DE09C097A9F89F@pascal.zaphodb.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
* tomb@byrneit.net (Tomas L. Byrnes) [Tue 04 Nov 2008, 17:51 CET]:
>The concept of "Transit Free" is a political failure, not a technical
>one.
Yeah, networks should be free! And Cogent, if they don't get access to
Sprint directly, should just set a default route over some public IX
where Sprint is also present at to reach their network!! And then hack
their routers to do likewise.
>The protocols are designed, and the original concept behind the Internet
>is, to propagate all reachability via all paths. IE to use Transit if
>peering fails.
Yeah, the original concept of the internet. Like classful IP routing.
>Not doing so is a policy decision that breaks the redundancy in the
>original design.
Because the original design totally had in mind established players
locking out cheaper newcomers and explicitly specified a maximum band
where prices for transit had to exist inside of.
Please stop it. We've had enough.
-- Niels.
--
"We humans get marks for consistency. We always opt for
civilization after exhausting the alternatives."
-- Carl Guderian
