RE: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts

From: David Schwartz (no email)
Date: Tue Nov 04 2008 - 11:02:57 EST

  • Next message: Patrick W. Gilmore: "Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts"

    Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:

    > On Nov 4, 2008, at 9:49 AM, David Freedman wrote:

    > >> 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.
    > >
    > > The internet "routes around" technical failures, not political ones.

    > If two transit free networks have a technical failure which disables
    > all peering between them, the Internet cannot route around it.

    Sure it can. The traffic just flows through any of the providers that still
    have reliable high-bandwidth connectivity to both of those providers.

    Unless, of course, a pre-existing political failure prohibits this traffic.
    The Internet can't route around that political failure.

    >From a technical standpoint, the Internet is always suffering from multiple
    political failures. This leaves it vulnerable to small technical failures it
    could otherwise route around.

    DS


  • Next message: Patrick W. Gilmore: "Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts"





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD