From: James Spenceley (no email)
Date: Wed Oct 05 2005 - 14:08:26 EDT
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 <> <> <>
-- James
|
|
|