[9124] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: UUNET Pulling Peering Agreements & replacing them with charging under non-disclosure?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Avi Freedman)
Tue May 6 01:29:01 1997
From: Avi Freedman <freedman@netaxs.com>
To: cnordin@ever.just.net (Craig Nordin)
Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 01:26:39 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: freedman@netaxs.com, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <199705060520.BAA00984@ever.just.net> from "Craig Nordin" at May 6, 97 01:20:55 am
> Routing Question:
>
> If backbone providers A, B, and C are fully peering with one another
> and little guy X has no peering with A but does with B and C. Will
> packets still travel from X(customer) to A(customer) and back again?
[inet-access deleted]
It depends whether X has transit from B, C, or some other peer of A.
If yes, then yes. If no, then no.
Because if X just peers with B and with C, neither B nor C is going
to announce X's routes to A...
If this isn't obvious to anyone following these discussions let me
know and I'll write something up for people to look at and hopefully grok,
which should cut down on the noise level.
But noone's talking about cutting themselves off from UUNET.
That's not an option, obviously. Certain other pissing matches
have involved other somewhat-large networks cutting themselves
off from each other and no real harm was done (in terms of
customer-loss - i.e. economic harm) to either network, but that
wouldn't be the case with loss of connectivity to UUNET (or
to a number of others).
Avi
