repstein at chello.at
Mon Jul 28 16:17:54 UTC 2008
> Which is as it should be. Then somebody (not clear who) apparently
> took explicit steps to stop the traffic from taking these other paths.
> Surprising. Severing a peering relationship is one thing, purposely
> filtering large swathes of the Internet over other all links is quite
> As I said, this is surprising behaviour, but not simple de-peering.
> And I'm sure that any Tier 1 has enough peering relationships with enough
> other Tier 1 networks that they can always buy temporary transit
> privileges over an existing link.
This is not surprising at all. One of the networks making arrangements to
purchase transit immediately may help the customers of both networks in the
short term, but the reality is that peering problem still exists and it
immediately shows a weakness on one side. If they're willing to pay, they
may agree to peering with settlements as well or just continue to buy
transit. No transit free network is going to allow this to happen. It is
in their best interest to make the de-peering as painful as possible to get
a quicker resolution that satisfies both parties.
Maybe not the greatest analogy, but think labor strikes and scabs (temporary
workers willing to cross the picket line). If there were no repercussions
to allowing scab workers to cross a picket line (lack of training leading to
mistakes/accidents, pressure placed by the unions, negative publicity
causing customers to boycott the company, etc), then unions wouldn't exist,
or at least wouldn't have the strength needed to put the issue to rest as
quickly as possible.
When your customers (and the other networks customers) are complaining, the
issue gets resolved much quicker. The Telia/Cogent depeering went longer
than most, but it usually gets the job done.
More information about the NANOG