On Jul 28, 2008, at 11:24 AM, William Waites wrote:
Le 08-07-28 à 17:12, nancyp@yorku.ca a écrit :
----Example: A York University professor was sitting at his desk at work in March 2008 trying to reach an internet website located somewhere in Europe. [...] York’s bandwidth supplier is Cogent which had severed a peering relationship with a bandwidth provider in Europe called Telia [...] which was the bandwidth network provider for the website that the Professor was trying to reach. [...] Cogent did not proactively inform the University of the issue and the loss of connectivity. Unreachability due to arbitrariness in network peering is unacceptable.
There must be more to this story. If Cogent de-peered from Telia the traffic would normally just have taken another path.
One should check one's assumptions before posting to 10K+ of their not- so-close friends. Neither network has transit. What other path is there to take? Once you answer that, I'll read the rest of your e-mail. -- TTFN, patrick
Either there was a configuration error of some sort or else some sort of proactive black-holing on one side or the other. As the latter would be surprising and very heavy handed, I would tend to suspect the former.
Peering relationships are made and severed all the time with no particular ill-effects, unless you can point to examples of outright malice (i.e. of the black-holing kind) I don't think there is much basis for any public policy decisions in this example.
Unreachability due to configuation error is of course relatively common; perhaps I am wrong, but I don't think the CRTC would really have much to say about that.
Cheers, -w