North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now

  • From: Richard A Steenbergen
  • Date: Wed Nov 02 15:21:56 2005

On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 08:22:20AM -0600, Pete Templin wrote:
> Time out here.  John set the stage: cold potato addressed the long haul 
> (or at least that's the assumption in place when I hopped on board).  If 
> NetA and NetB are honoring MED (or other appropriate knob), NetA->NetB 
> traffic has already arrived at the closest mutual peering point in the 
> A->B direction.  The rest of the infrastructure would be the 
> responsibility of NetB to get the traffic to CustomerPortXYZ, no?  How 
> could CustomerXY get any closer to NetA without cutting NetB out of the 
> middle, and if NetB is out of the middle, why should CustomerXY pay NetB 
> anything?

You're forgetting that MEDs suck. When used on real complex production 
networks, they almost always degrade the quality of the routing.

Yes with enough time and energy (or a small enough network) you *can* beat 
perfect MEDs out of the system (and your customers). You can selectively 
deaggregate the hell out of your network, then you can zero out all the 
known aggregate blocks and regions that are in the middle of two 
MED-speaking interconnection points, and get your customers to tag 
aggregate blocks announced in multiple locations so that you can zero out 
those MEDs. With enough time and energy anything is possible, the point is 
that most folks don't consider it to be worth the time, let alone the 
customer anger when it degrades your traffic.

Richard A Steenbergen <[email protected]>
GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)