NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad

NNSquad Home Page

NNSquad Mailing List Information


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[ NNSquad ] Re: Peering dispute cuts off Sprint<->Cogent Internet traffic

Here's a good article on the situation:

Barry Gold wrote:
OK, so what has happened to the "treats censorship as damage and routes around it" Internet?

It hasn't existed for a long time.

Even if Embarq and Cogent are no longer talking to each other, the routers should be automatically finding routes via other carriers and sending the packets -- around Robin Hood's barn if necessary, but the Internet is supposed to be _robust_.

I disagree. Let's imagine that I'm a customer connected to both Sprint and Cogent. Technically there is a path between them -- through my poor little router (maybe this is what you meant by "around Robin Hood's barn"). But I don't want to carry that traffic, because I'm paying for those links to carry *my* traffic, not other people's. Backbones will tell you the same thing; they'd be happy to carry traffic between Cogent and Sprint as long as somebody pays for it.

Are these guys programming their routers to just drop packets with certain destination IP addresses, instead of finding the shortest available route?

There are routes, but they're not "available" because they haven't been paid for.

I'm beginning to think that Congress (or perhaps an international body similar to the WTO) should make the core RFCs (IP, TCP, BGP, FTP, HTTP, SMTP, and RFC 822) have the force of law. And anybody who violates those protocols should be fined and/or have their connections turned off.

The standards allow this behavior, so that approach won't work. If you want to regulate peering and interconnection, just say that. (BTW, "depeering" still exists in the heavily regulated PSTN and TV markets:

Wes Felter - wesley@felter.org