[85117] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (James Spenceley)
Wed Oct 5 14:49:20 2005
In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.4.63.0510051331490.26258@server.duh.org>
From: James Spenceley <james@iroute.org>
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 21:08:26 +0300
To: Todd Vierling <tv@duh.org>, nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On 05/10/2005, at 8:41 PM, Todd Vierling wrote:
> "Isn't BGP supposed to work around this sort of thing?"
Ok, I'll state the obvious first ....
BGP is a routing protocol, the economics of its implementation bears
no resemblance to implied or otherwise connectivity.
> This comes down to a little more than just "depeering" -- at least
> in the
> BGP sense. There's active route filtering going on as well if
> connectivity
> is dead; after all, I can bet the house that at least one of Cogent's
> network edge peers has connectivity to Level3, and vice versa.
That would assume that cogent is paying someone to transit their
routes to L3. Which I can deduce is not the case.
> What nature of clause? I consider deliberately filtering prefixes
> or origin
> ASs to be a violation of common backbone BGP use.
I'm not familiar with the concept of a 'common backbone BGP use
policy". The best analogy I can think of is ....
"A commodity appears at first sight an extremely obvious, trivial
thing. But its analysis brings out that it is a very strange thing,
abounding in metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties."
-- Karl Marx.
> -- Todd Vierling <tv@duh.org> <tv@pobox.com> <todd@vierling.name>
--
James
