Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts
fw at deneb.enyo.de
Mon Nov 3 03:26:59 CST 2008
* Patrick W. Gilmore:
> 1. Neither Sprint nor Cogent have transit
> Both Sprint & Cogent are transit-free networks. (Notice how I
> carefully avoided saying "tier one"?) Whether one or both _should_
> have transit is not a fact, and therefore outside the scope of this e-
> mail, but that neither have transit today is a fact. (And please
> don't tell me how Network X has 100 Mbps of transit in Sri Lanka
> because they are too lazy to lease undersea cable. If you don't
> understand what I am saying here, stop reading now.)
> 2. The Internet cannot "route around" de-peering
> I know everyone believes "the Internet routes around failures". While
> occasionally true, it does not hold in this case. To "route around"
> the "failure" would require transit. See item #1.
Out of curiosity, what would happen if one of the parties got transit
from a business POV? Not just in this particular case, but in
Doesn't this work because they are so large that any such arrangement
would immediately threaten traffic ratios at the (transit-free)
> 3. Standard transit contracts do not guarantee full connectivity
If this were true, why would end users (or, more generally, not
significantly multi-homed networks) buy transit from such networks?
More information about the NANOG