[109071] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Larry Sheldon)
Tue Nov 4 13:45:26 2008
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 12:45:20 -0600
From: Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon@cox.net>
CC: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <5559A8A3-60C8-4692-BDBD-2D5B990EABB4@ianai.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>> 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.
>
> See above. I do not think it is a "political failure" that I do not
> give you free transit.
We3 have, I think, a reality failure.
The terminology comes from ARP and UUCP days.
The reality comes from today, where traffic flows, as a maximum, between
nodes that think there is something it for them to allow it to flow.
If a packet has evidence of "fare paid" flows.
End of story.
The difference between "peer" and "transit is the coin used to pay the
fare.
