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".
>>>> 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
> 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
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
> 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