|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Peering versus Transit
On Mon, 30 Sep 1996, Vadim Antonov wrote:
> You should always add "without consent of the said ISP".
>
> It is no different from dumping a pile of bricks at somebody's property.
>
> Are bricks useful? You bet. Will it get you dragged in court on
> charges trespassing and defacing the property? Sure as hell.
What if you are FlyBite Couriers Inc. and you have a parcel for Bigco
Inc's art department. The sign on the door at BigCo says "No deliveries,
go to the back door, this means you!". But you are to lazy so you walk in,
argue with the receptionist for a minute and dump your package on the
floor. She has to call in one of the mailroom people from the far end of
the building complex to deliver the package.
> It is not a "theft", it is more like trespassing. It is illegal and
> covered by codes related to unauthorized use of equipment.
FlyBite Couriers has caused Bigco to spend their own resources in order to
deliver the package to teh art department. Is FlyBite Couriers guilty of
theft? No. Are they guilty of trespass? I don't think so. Even though the
sign did seem to indicate that they are not authorised to deliver their
package at the front door, I think you would have a hard time convincing a
court that they made unauthorised use of the front door and reception
area.
Of course, this is just *ONE* possible scenario. Some other scenarios
mentioned here are much clearer than this one.
> One technical reason is pretty obvious -- it is called "traffic engineering".
> Large ISPs often use nudged routing advertisements as means to balance
> load between peering points. That assumes that nobody is sending
> unsolicited traffic.
This makes good sense too. However, there are always two sides to every
traffic engineeriung question...
WebbFarms ----Sprint--------+--------------------- Exchange ---FlyBitNet
| |
+----MCI-------------------------------+
Although I am using the names Sprint and MCI here I do not mean to imply
anything about those specific comapnies; they are just a handy way of
referring to Big NSP A and Big NSP B without getting things too mixed up.
Now FlyBit Networks has a T1 to MCI and a DS3 to the XP. From their
traffic engineering point of view it makes sense to send the traffic for
WebbFarms straight into Sprint at the XP. But Sprint's traffic engineers
want to offload traffic from the XP and get it through a private
interconnect with MCI.
|