From: Dorian Kim <email@example.com>
> Likewise, a lot of traffic from Ann Arbor Michigan to Columbus Ohio
> travels via MAE-East, despite the fact that Merit is already connected
> to CICnet, which is in turn connected to Columbus (both OSU and OARnet).
> The problem is, Merit has no "bi-lateral peering" with CICnet.
This is not exactly correct. CICNet Michigan(AS266) peers with Merit over a
FDDI ring in Ann Arbor.
I suspect that the problem you are running into is that CICNet Primary
region (AS1225) which does not have physical connectivity to AS266 or Merit
provides connectivity for OSU, and peers with OARnet.
I am admittedly confused here. CICnet provides connectivity from UMich
to OSU, and the other Big Ten schools. CICnet is physically connected
to UMich and MichNet, and also to OSU and OARnet.
Are you saying that despite the peering with Merit/MichNet and the
traffic actually flowing to OSU, some other pieces of CICnet at the same
location (OSU and OARnet) are physically and topologically
discontiguous? That is, you don't carry your own internal traffic?
This problems has nothing to do with who has what bilaterals with whom, or who
is willing to peer with whomever else, but rather a simple constraint based
So please choose a more apropos example next time. Thanks.
The quoted "bi-lateral peering" was taken from your own private message
on the subject. Perhaps I don't understand the use of the term
"bi-lateral peering". I thought that it meant willing to forward all
traffic from each party to the other party.
Your private message indicated that you have such an agreement with
OARnet, but not with Merit, and that it was Merit that is unwilling to
make the agreement. I then checked with Merit (John Vollbrecht), who
gave me a similar (though not identical) explanation.
Topological contraints were not mentioned in your private message.
Sorry if I misunderstood your message.
Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2