[85133] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeff Shultz)
Wed Oct 5 15:44:58 2005
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 12:22:25 -0700
From: Jeff Shultz <jeffshultz@wvi.com>
To: John Payne <john@sackheads.org>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <d632e99f315f6b104bf133c791a3dfef@sackheads.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
John Payne wrote:
>
> If nobody filtered BGP at all (in or out), you would have the state you
> are expecting. However, you would have both a capacity problem, and an
> economic failure, as you may well end up with cogent trying to send all
> (much) of it's level3 destined traffic through a customer's connection
> with much smaller pipes... or overloading it's connectivity to one of
> its other peers. The economic failure comes because now you're
> expecting a third party to transit packets between cogent and level3
> without being paid for it (and some of those connections are metered).
>
Okay. I always figured that the difference between peering and transit
was that you paid for one and not the other. I had no idea that when you
bought transit from someone, you weren't automatically buying transit to
_all_ of that providers other connections.
Interesting. Balkanization of the Internet anyone? As one other
commenter hinted at, it does sound like a recipe for encouraging
multi-homing, even at the lowest levels. How many ASN's can the system
handle currently?
--
Jeff Shultz
