[85386] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Level 3's side of the story
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Curran)
Sat Oct 8 11:44:06 2005
In-Reply-To: <20051008142422.GA94098@scylla.towardex.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2005 11:42:40 -0400
To: James <james@towardex.com>
From: John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
At 10:24 AM -0400 10/8/05, James wrote:
>
> > 3) Possible traffic issues. Was Cogent guilty of not transporting the
>> Level3-bound packets within the Cogent network to the closest
>> point-of-entry peer to the host in the Level3 network, therefore "costing"
>> Level3 transit of their own packets? In other words is it also a traffic
>> engineering issue?
>
>No, that was BBN vs. Exodus depeering superbowl back in 90's, which was
>resolved through cold potato routing.
*cough*
Cold potato routing alone is insufficient in many cases, and some form of
settlement becomes necessary.
http://www.cctec.com/maillists/nanog/historical/9808/msg00517.html
/John
