Re: Internet partitioning event regulations

From: Kevin Loch (no email)
Date: Wed Nov 05 2008 - 18:04:30 EST

  • Next message: Matthew Palmer: "Re: Internet partitioning event regulations (was: RE: Sending vs requesting. Was: Re: Sprint / Cogent)"

    William Herrin wrote:
    > On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 12:12 PM, Larry Sheldon <> wrote:
    >>>> Lamar Owen wrote:
    >>>>> There are three ways that I know of (feel free to add to this
    >>>>> list) to limit the events: 1.) As you mentioned, regulation (or a
    >>>>> government run and regulated backbone);
    >> Which government?
    >
    > First, let me say that I think peering regulation is a terrible idea.
    > No matter how cleverly you plan it, the result will be that fewer
    > small companies can participate. That's the character of regulation:
    > compliance creates more barriers to entry than it removes.

    The problem isn't that which networks don't peer with each other it is
    that some networks don't buy transit from anyone. That is what
    causes partition related outages and distortions in peering policies.
    If regulation could be part of the 'solution' then that would be the
    place to start.

    But despite the flaws with the current environment it really isn't that
    bad and any regulation would likely be a disaster for the industry.

    - Kevin


  • Next message: Matthew Palmer: "Re: Internet partitioning event regulations (was: RE: Sending vs requesting. Was: Re: Sprint / Cogent)"





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD