[4835] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Peering versus Transit
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bill Woodcock)
Mon Sep 30 03:44:32 1996
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 00:40:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bill Woodcock <woody@zocalo.net>
To: avg@quake.net, barney@databus.com, nanog@merit.edu
> There are two ways to have packets go...
> adding bogus static or whatever routes
> or by pointing default. Both are malicious.
WRT the latter, I completely agree that pointing a default at anyone
whom you're not buying transit from is theft, and absolutely beyond
condonement.
WRT the former, I simply cannot fathom, and no one other than Sean has
yet presented an argument explaining why it's malicious to deliver a
packet to its addressee's ISP. Why should I, as an ISP, not prefer
that all other ISPs deliver packets to my customers as quickly,
efficiently, directly, and inexpensively as possible? Why should I
prefer a more expensive or less reliable route, or expect any other
ISP to do so?
I realize that this is about the hundredth time somebody has asked
exactly that question, but people are just going to keep asking until
there's a convincing reason, or people stop suggesting that other
people use less-efficient paths. It is, after all, an obvious
question.
> Example, please, when somebody conforming to the stated policies
> was denied peering? (Plase note that the process... may be
> rather lengthy...
Okay, it's _widely rumored_ that it may be difficult to establish new
peering sessions with some large ISPs, at the moment. :-) But this
again distracts from the question at hand, since you assume that
"stated policies" should institutionalize unequal relationships.
Assuming that skirts the argument, just as nonsequiturs about default
routes do.
-Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
bill woodcock woody@zocalo.net woody@applelink.apple.com user@host.domain.com
