On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 09:15:53PM -0500, Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
>
> On Mar 28, 2005, at 8:29 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >>and if you peer with all networks in the 'transit free zone' then you
> >>too become
> >>transit free also.
> >
> > er.. hate to rain on your parade but if I peer with everyone
> > i need/want to exchange traffic with, i am transit-free, even
> > if I -NEVER- touch any other part of the commercial Internet...
> > my packets get to where they need to go and all packets I want
> > get to me. my life is good ... even if I only appear as vestigal
> > to the commercial Internet, if I appear at all.
>
> Absolutely correct.
>
>
> > how would you classify such a network? T1, T2, ODDBALL-0,
> > non-Internet-265, ???
>
> I doubt it is a tier. I am certain it is not an "Internet" network if
> it does not have connectivity to substantially all other Internet
> networks.
begs the definition of "internet networks" ...
It has IP connectivity to the other IP networks of interest.
For networks that are not of interest, there is no expressly
defined connectivity. The term Internet has devolved into
a series of interconnected -COMMERCIAL- networks and from that
viewpoint, anyone on a non-commercial network, that has no desire
to be connected to a commercial network, is relegated, BY THE
COMMERCIAL OPERATORS, to "intranet" status. The historical
term - INTERNET - reflected a catanet of networks that used IP
for packet delivery. with the inclusion of robust policy expression
on network "edges" - full, global, end2end reachability truely
became a myth ... and the term Internet became based on a
shifting foundation. So from a commercial networking perspective,
yes, my network is vestigal. But it is transit-free and has
full connectivity to all of the parties it wants/needs to talk to.
So by that definition (e.g. transit-free) its a Tier-1.
Sort of points out some of the weaknesses in terminology and
the biases in a single viewpoint.
as usual, YMMV.
--bill
> TTFN,
> patrick
