North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

  • From: James Spenceley
  • Date: Wed Oct 05 14:50:23 2005

On 05/10/2005, at 8:41 PM, Todd Vierling wrote:
"Isn't BGP supposed to work around this sort of thing?"
Ok, I'll state the obvious first ....

BGP is a routing protocol, the economics of its implementation bears no resemblance to implied or otherwise connectivity.

This comes down to a little more than just "depeering" -- at least in the
BGP sense. There's active route filtering going on as well if connectivity
is dead; after all, I can bet the house that at least one of Cogent's
network edge peers has connectivity to Level3, and vice versa.
That would assume that cogent is paying someone to transit their routes to L3. Which I can deduce is not the case.

What nature of clause? I consider deliberately filtering prefixes or origin
ASs to be a violation of common backbone BGP use.
I'm not familiar with the concept of a 'common backbone BGP use policy". The best analogy I can think of is ....

"A commodity appears at first sight an extremely obvious, trivial thing. But its analysis brings out that it is a very strange thing, abounding in metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties."
-- Karl Marx.

-- Todd Vierling <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>