North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts

  • From: Patrick W. Gilmore
  • Date: Tue Nov 04 11:55:12 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.

--
TTFN,
patrick



-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick W. Gilmore [mailto:[email protected]xx]
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