Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts

Patrick W. Gilmore patrick at ianai.net
Tue Nov 4 16:55:01 UTC 2008

On Nov 4, 2008, at 11:51 AM, Tomas L. Byrnes wrote:

> The concept of "Transit Free" is a political failure, not a technical
> one.

We disagree.

> The protocols are designed, and the original concept behind the  
> Internet
> is, to propagate all reachability via all paths. IE to use Transit if
> peering fails.
> Not doing so is a policy decision that breaks the redundancy in the
> original design.

Using the 'original design' (and honestly, your assertion is  
debatable) would not have allowed the Internet to scale to the size it  
is today.  Or even the size it was 10 years ago.

So I guess you could say the current situation is a political success.


>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Patrick W. Gilmore [mailto:patrick at ianai.net]
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 8:10 AM
>> To: NANOG list
>> Subject: Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts
>> 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.
>> --
>> TTFN,
>> patrick

More information about the NANOG mailing list