> There are two ways to have packets go... > adding bogus static or whatever routes > or by pointing default. Both are malicious. WRT the latter, I completely agree that pointing a default at anyone whom you're not buying transit from is theft, and absolutely beyond condonement. WRT the former, I simply cannot fathom, and no one other than Sean has yet presented an argument explaining why it's malicious to deliver a packet to its addressee's ISP. Why should I, as an ISP, not prefer that all other ISPs deliver packets to my customers as quickly, efficiently, directly, and inexpensively as possible? Why should I prefer a more expensive or less reliable route, or expect any other ISP to do so? I realize that this is about the hundredth time somebody has asked exactly that question, but people are just going to keep asking until there's a convincing reason, or people stop suggesting that other people use less-efficient paths. It is, after all, an obvious question. > Example, please, when somebody conforming to the stated policies > was denied peering? (Plase note that the process... may be > rather lengthy... Okay, it's _widely rumored_ that it may be difficult to establish new peering sessions with some large ISPs, at the moment. :-) But this again distracts from the question at hand, since you assume that "stated policies" should institutionalize unequal relationships. Assuming that skirts the argument, just as nonsequiturs about default routes do. -Bill ________________________________________________________________________________ bill woodcock woody@zocalo.net woody@applelink.apple.com user@host.domain.com
On Mon, 30 Sep 1996, Bill Woodcock wrote: [re: pointing bogus statics at a provider's router to reach their customers]
WRT the former, I simply cannot fathom, and no one other than Sean has yet presented an argument explaining why it's malicious to deliver a packet to its addressee's ISP. Why should I, as an ISP, not prefer that all other ISPs deliver packets to my customers as quickly, efficiently, directly, and inexpensively as possible? Why should I prefer a more expensive or less reliable route, or expect any other ISP to do so?
Quite simply, because you're using THEIR resources to do so, without explicit permission from them. Claiming that you're using the resource for its intended purpose, or to the advantage of their proprietor, does not justify this. Could one demand to ride public transportation without fare with the justification that the stated purpose of a certain bus is to carry persons into the city? Or because one's employer desires that one get to the city in an efficient fashion? By delivering your packets to their customers, an ISP is not only servicing said customers, but you, the originating ISP, as well. If there is an imbalance in services rendered, settlement is in order. Utilizing their services without an agreement could be interpreted as theft. -- // 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]
because ds-3's to naps are finite resources and cost money. why would you assume that any provider wants to burn his ds-3 by taking traffic at a nap when he has better connectivity to your transit provider? in fact, he may not even peer with your transit provider at the nap. why am i not free to arrange traffic flows between my backbone and others as i see fit? mci and sprint have arranged six ds-3's between their respective backbones. if your transit provider is sprint, i don't want your traffic to me by way of a nap. if you give it to me at a nap, you deserve what you get. one would think, in my case, that a ds-3 to a nap would cost me more than a direct ds-3 connection to the XXX backbone. (assuming that XXX is the transit provider). Jeff Young young@mci.net
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 00:40:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Bill Woodcock <woody@zocalo.net> Message-Id: <199609300740.AAA01931@zocalo.net> To: avg@quake.net, barney@databus.com, nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Peering versus Transit Sender: owner-nanog@merit.edu Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1837
> There are two ways to have packets go... > adding bogus static or whatever routes > or by pointing default. Both are malicious.
WRT the latter, I completely agree that pointing a default at anyone whom you're not buying transit from is theft, and absolutely beyond condonement.
WRT the former, I simply cannot fathom, and no one other than Sean has yet presented an argument explaining why it's malicious to deliver a packet to its addressee's ISP. Why should I, as an ISP, not prefer that all other ISPs deliver packets to my customers as quickly, efficiently, directly, and inexpensively as possible? Why should I prefer a more expensive or less reliable route, or expect any other ISP to do so?
I realize that this is about the hundredth time somebody has asked exactly that question, but people are just going to keep asking until there's a convincing reason, or people stop suggesting that other people use less-efficient paths. It is, after all, an obvious question.
> Example, please, when somebody conforming to the stated policies > was denied peering? (Plase note that the process... may be > rather lengthy...
Okay, it's _widely rumored_ that it may be difficult to establish new peering sessions with some large ISPs, at the moment. :-) But this again distracts from the question at hand, since you assume that "stated policies" should institutionalize unequal relationships. Assuming that skirts the argument, just as nonsequiturs about default routes do.
-Bill
________________________________________________________________________________ bill woodcock woody@zocalo.net woody@applelink.apple.com user@host.domain.com
participants (3)
-
Bill Woodcock -
Jeff Young -
Matt Zimmerman