FW: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts
Tomas L. Byrnes
tomb at byrneit.net
Tue Nov 4 18:09:43 CST 2008
From: Tomas L. Byrnes
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 4:08 PM
To: 'Niels Bakker'
Subject: RE: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts
There was nothing in my post advocating free transit or peering. I
merely pointed out that peering only without downstream propagation was
a technical error, based on the proper implementation of the protocols
All the discussion of practicality and politics are implementation
failures: the first because of crappy routers, the second because of the
established player issue you called out.
We've all had enough of crappy networks causing unreachability.
>From: Niels Bakker [mailto:niels=nanog at bakker.net]
>Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 9:30 AM
>To: nanog at nanog.org
>Subject: Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts
>* tomb at byrneit.net (Tomas L. Byrnes) [Tue 04 Nov 2008, 17:51 CET]:
>>The concept of "Transit Free" is a political failure, not a technical
>Yeah, networks should be free! And Cogent, if they don't get access to
>Sprint directly, should just set a default route over some public IX
>where Sprint is also present at to reach their network!! And then hack
>their routers to do likewise.
>>The protocols are designed, and the original concept behind the
>>is, to propagate all reachability via all paths. IE to use Transit if
>Yeah, the original concept of the internet. Like classful IP routing.
>>Not doing so is a policy decision that breaks the redundancy in the
>Because the original design totally had in mind established players
>locking out cheaper newcomers and explicitly specified a maximum band
>where prices for transit had to exist inside of.
>Please stop it. We've had enough.
> -- Niels.
>"We humans get marks for consistency. We always opt for
> civilization after exhausting the alternatives."
> -- Carl Guderian
More information about the NANOG