On Mon, 30 Sep 1996, Bill Woodcock wrote:
Matt Zimmerman <mdz@netrail.net> writes: > because you're using THEIR resources to do so, without > explicit permission from them. That's a repetition of the same position that's been stated over and over, without justification. If A sends to B directly in the absence of an advertised route, A is "stealing" resources from B. If B sends to A indirectly through A's transit provider, then B is "stealing" resources from A. What makes the former case worse in your mind than the latter, when it results in higher reliability, lower cost, and a sounder architecture?
In the latter case, there are established agreements for exchange of traffic. In the former case, there are not. B may not even KNOW that A is doing this. The distinction seems rather clear. Besides this, there are engineering reasons why this is a bad idea, many of which have been explained to you already. Also note that dumping your traffic to an NSP at an IXP may not BE a route of "higher reliability" or "sounder architecture". Randomly injecting your traffic into some point on B's network does not guarantee, or even imply, optimal traffic patterns. I also fail to see how this is a lower-cost solution, as, without a peering agreement with B, you must still purchase transit to them from another source.
Reiterating the same position over and over without any basis or logical foundation does nothing to convince anyone that your position is of any merit.
I've seen several messages with excellent engineering, economic and philosopical arguments against this practice. -- // Matt Zimmerman Chief of System Management NetRail, Inc. // mdz@netrail.net sales@netrail.net // (703) 524-4800 [voice] (703) 516-0500 [data] (703) 534-5033 [fax]