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?
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.
-Bill
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.