|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts
> > The concept of "Transit Free" is a political failure, not a > technical > > one. > > We disagree. Perhaps some examples are needed? If you drive in a screw with a big hammer, the end result is not pleasing. For one, a screw will not have the holding power of a nail. For another, the screw and the hammer are both likely to damage the objects being attached. Nevertheless, you would be hardpressed to say that this is a technical failure. A wise person could have imposed the policy of always using screwdrivers to drive in a screw, and to only drive in nails when using a hammer. Same technology, different results. In the case of peering arrangements, the term "transit free" hides a multitude of sins. It is pure spin, dreamed up by marketing people back in the 90's when the Big Five ISPs were trying to control the market and make it hard for competitors to gain mythical Tier 1 status. In the end, everyone drank the koolaid and the whole arena of network operations has been poisoned by it. Has anyone heard of a backup route? With a longer path so it is never used unless there is a real emergency? Why was there no backup route available to carry the Sprint <-> Cogent traffic? Because there was a political failure in both Sprint and Cogent. Back in 2000 it was acceptable for the big New York banks to have all their eggs in one basket in central Manhattan. In 2002, it was no longer acceptable. Do we really need a 911 magnitude of disaster on the Internet for people to wake up and smell the coffee? The Internet is no longer a kewl tool built and operated by the cognoscenti to meet their own interests. It is now part of every nation's and everbody's critical infrastructure. It needs to be engineered and operated better so that it does not end up partitioning for dumb reasons. --Michael Dillon
|