RE: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts

(no email)
Date: Tue Nov 04 2008 - 12:33:08 EST

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

    > > The concept of "Transit Free" is a political failure, not a
    > technical
    > > one.
    >
    > We disagree.

    Perhaps some examples are needed? If you drive in a screw with
    a big hammer, the end result is not pleasing. For one, a screw will
    not have the holding power of a nail. For another, the screw and
    the hammer are both likely to damage the objects being attached.

    Nevertheless, you would be hardpressed to say that this is a technical
    failure. A wise person could have imposed the policy of always using
    screwdrivers to drive in a screw, and to only drive in nails when
    using a hammer. Same technology, different results.

    In the case of peering arrangements, the term "transit free" hides a
    multitude of sins. It is pure spin, dreamed up by marketing people back
    in the 90's when the Big Five ISPs were trying to control the market
    and make it hard for competitors to gain mythical Tier 1 status. In the
    end, everyone drank the koolaid and the whole arena of network
    operations
    has been poisoned by it.

    Has anyone heard of a backup route? With a longer path so it is never
    used
    unless there is a real emergency? Why was there no backup route
    available
    to carry the Sprint <-> Cogent traffic? Because there was a political
    failure
    in both Sprint and Cogent.

    Back in 2000 it was acceptable for the big New York banks to have all
    their
    eggs in one basket in central Manhattan. In 2002, it was no longer
    acceptable.
    Do we really need a 911 magnitude of disaster on the Internet for people
    to
    wake up and smell the coffee? The Internet is no longer a kewl tool
    built
    and operated by the cognoscenti to meet their own interests. It is now
    part
    of every nation's and everbody's critical infrastructure. It needs to be
    engineered and operated better so that it does not end up partitioning
    for
    dumb reasons.

    --Michael Dillon


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





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD