Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts

Patrick W. Gilmore patrick at ianai.net
Tue Nov 4 16:09:31 UTC 2008

On Nov 4, 2008, at 11:02 AM, David Schwartz wrote:
> Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>> On Nov 4, 2008, at 9:49 AM, David Freedman wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>> The internet "routes around" technical failures, not political ones.
>> If two transit free networks have a technical failure which disables
>> all peering between them, the Internet cannot route around it.
> Sure it can. The traffic just flows through any of the providers  
> that still
> have reliable high-bandwidth connectivity to both of those providers.
> Unless, of course, a pre-existing political failure prohibits this  
> traffic.
> The Internet can't route around that political failure.

Perhaps you missed the "transit free" part.

If Sprint & UUNET have a technical failure causing all peering to go  
down, Level 3 will not magically transport packets between the two,  
despite the fact L3 has "reliable high-bandwidth connectivity to both  
of those providers".  How would you propose L3 bill UU & Sprint for  
it?  On second thought, don't answer that, I don't think it would be a  
useful discussion.

Or are you claiming the fact every network does not give every other  
network transit a "political failure".  If you are, we should agree to  
disagree and move on.

> From a technical standpoint, the Internet is always suffering from  
> multiple
> political failures. This leaves it vulnerable to small technical  
> failures it
> could otherwise route around.

See above.  I do not think it is a "political failure" that I do not  
give you free transit.


More information about the NANOG mailing list