Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

[James Spenceley <james () iroute org>]

On 05/10/2005, at 8:41 PM, Todd Vierling wrote:
> "Isn't BGP supposed to work around this sort of thing?"

Ok, I'll state the obvious first ....

BGP is a routing protocol, the economics of its implementation bears  
no resemblance to implied or otherwise connectivity.

> This comes down to a little more than just "depeering" -- at least  
> in the
> BGP sense.  There's active route filtering going on as well if  
> connectivity
> is dead; after all, I can bet the house that at least one of Cogent's
> network edge peers has connectivity to Level3, and vice versa.

That would assume that cogent is paying someone to transit their  
routes to L3. Which I can deduce is not the case.

> What nature of clause?  I consider deliberately filtering prefixes  
> or origin
> ASs to be a violation of common backbone BGP use.

I'm not familiar with the concept of a 'common backbone BGP use  
policy". The best analogy I can think of is ....

"A commodity appears at first sight an extremely obvious, trivial  
thing. But its analysis brings out that it is a very strange thing,  
abounding in metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties."
 -- Karl Marx.


> -- Todd Vierling <tv () duh org> <tv () pobox com> <todd () vierling name>

--
James