Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts

From: Niels Bakker (niels=)
Date: Tue Nov 04 2008 - 12:30:08 EST

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

    * (Tomas L. Byrnes) [Tue 04 Nov 2008, 17:51 CET]:
    >The concept of "Transit Free" is a political failure, not a technical

    Yeah, networks should be free! And Cogent, if they don't get access to
    Sprint directly, should just set a default route over some public IX
    where Sprint is also present at to reach their network!! And then hack
    their routers to do likewise.

    >The protocols are designed, and the original concept behind the Internet
    >is, to propagate all reachability via all paths. IE to use Transit if
    >peering fails.

    Yeah, the original concept of the internet. Like classful IP routing.

    >Not doing so is a policy decision that breaks the redundancy in the
    >original design.

    Because the original design totally had in mind established players
    locking out cheaper newcomers and explicitly specified a maximum band
    where prices for transit had to exist inside of.

    Please stop it. We've had enough.

            -- Niels.

    "We humans get marks for consistency. We always opt for
      civilization after exhausting the alternatives."
    			-- Carl Guderian

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

    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs

    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD