Re: routing around Sprint's depeering damage

From: Lamar Owen (no email)
Date: Mon Nov 03 2008 - 14:35:21 EST

  • Next message: Jeff Aitken: "Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts"

    On Sunday 02 November 2008 10:28:31 Joe Greco wrote:
    > previous poster wrote:
    > > so perhaps look at
    > > your own setup and decide that you need that 2nd connection to back you
    > > up when first one fails. This is a simple business logic.

    > Is it just me, or is this awful logic?

    Awful or not, this is the enduser business logic.

    > Really, we DO NOT WANT every site that considers itself to have "mission
    > critical needs" to be multihomed. This would lead to an explosion in the
    > size of the routing table.

    Playing enduser devil's advocate here. "Oh my! You poor provider and your
    routing table explosion! It's not my problem you need to forklift upgrade
    your routing gear due to this settlement-free interconnect versus transit
    stupidity: my business is made or broken by reachability, and I WILL do what
    I have to do to get that reachability. If it costs you, boo hoo."

    The more peering disagreements and the more news that "The Internet"
    is "broken in half!" reaches endusers, the more endusers' boards of directors
    will require multihoming, and the more it will cost every provider, and, by
    extension, every enduser.

    Endusers have been sold the faulty concept of "The Internet" (which we all
    know only halfway exists as a loose melange of voluntary interconnections to
    begin with) and they are demanding what they were sold. And, like it or not,
    each provider's very existence depends upon the endusers' pocketbooks.

  • Next message: Jeff Aitken: "Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts"

    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs

    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD