Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts

From: Florian Weimer (no email)
Date: Mon Nov 03 2008 - 04:26:59 EST

  • Next message: (no name): "Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts"

    * Patrick W. Gilmore:

    > 1. Neither Sprint nor Cogent have transit
    > Both Sprint & Cogent are transit-free networks. (Notice how I
    > carefully avoided saying "tier one"?) Whether one or both _should_
    > have transit is not a fact, and therefore outside the scope of this e-
    > mail, but that neither have transit today is a fact. (And please
    > don't tell me how Network X has 100 Mbps of transit in Sri Lanka
    > because they are too lazy to lease undersea cable. If you don't
    > understand what I am saying here, stop reading now.)
    > 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.

    Out of curiosity, what would happen if one of the parties got transit
    from a business POV? Not just in this particular case, but in

    Doesn't this work because they are so large that any such arrangement
    would immediately threaten traffic ratios at the (transit-free)
    transit provider?

    > 3. Standard transit contracts do not guarantee full connectivity

    If this were true, why would end users (or, more generally, not
    significantly multi-homed networks) buy transit from such networks?

  • Next message: (no name): "Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts"

    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs

    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD