From: Jeff Shultz (no email)
Date: Wed Oct 05 2005 - 15:22:25 EDT
John Payne wrote:
>
> If nobody filtered BGP at all (in or out), you would have the state you
> are expecting. However, you would have both a capacity problem, and an
> economic failure, as you may well end up with cogent trying to send all
> (much) of it's level3 destined traffic through a customer's connection
> with much smaller pipes... or overloading it's connectivity to one of
> its other peers. The economic failure comes because now you're
> expecting a third party to transit packets between cogent and level3
> without being paid for it (and some of those connections are metered).
>
Okay. I always figured that the difference between peering and transit
was that you paid for one and not the other. I had no idea that when you
bought transit from someone, you weren't automatically buying transit to
_all_ of that providers other connections.
Interesting. Balkanization of the Internet anyone? As one other
commenter hinted at, it does sound like a recipe for encouraging
multi-homing, even at the lowest levels. How many ASN's can the system
handle currently?
-- Jeff Shultz
|
|
|