Patrick W. Gilmore
patrick at ianai.net
Mon Jul 28 10:29:57 CDT 2008
On Jul 28, 2008, at 11:24 AM, William Waites wrote:
> Le 08-07-28 à 17:12, nancyp at yorku.ca a écrit :
>> ----Example: A York University professor was sitting at his desk at
>> work in
>> March 2008 trying to reach an internet website located somewhere in
>> [...] York’s bandwidth supplier is Cogent which had severed a
>> peering relationship
>> with a bandwidth provider in Europe called Telia [...] which was
>> the bandwidth
>> network provider for the website that the Professor was trying to
>> reach. [...]
>> Cogent did not proactively inform the University of the issue and
>> the loss of
>> connectivity. Unreachability due to arbitrariness in network
>> peering is unacceptable.
> There must be more to this story. If Cogent de-peered from Telia the
> traffic would
> normally just have taken another path.
One should check one's assumptions before posting to 10K+ of their not-
Neither network has transit. What other path is there to take?
Once you answer that, I'll read the rest of your e-mail.
> Either there was a configuration error of some
> sort or else some sort of proactive black-holing on one side or the
> other. As the
> latter would be surprising and very heavy handed, I would tend to
> suspect the former.
> Peering relationships are made and severed all the time with no
> particular ill-effects,
> unless you can point to examples of outright malice (i.e. of the
> black-holing kind) I
> don't think there is much basis for any public policy decisions in
> this example.
> Unreachability due to configuation error is of course relatively
> common; perhaps I am
> wrong, but I don't think the CRTC would really have much to say
> about that.
More information about the NANOG