Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts

Florian Weimer fw at deneb.enyo.de
Mon Nov 3 09:26:59 UTC 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)
transit provider?

> 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 mailing list