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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
James
