Re: Some corrections

[Dorian Kim <dorian () cic net>]

On Mon, 15 Apr 1996, William Allen Simpson wrote:

> > From: Dorian Kim <dorian () cic net>
> > 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.

This used to be the case. This is right now not the case. This maybe the case
again in the future. Confused yet? Welcome to the world of academic
networking. :)

> 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?

Depends on what you mean. AS266 traffic goes through MCI to get to AS1225.

> 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.

Normally that would be the case. In this case, this is not physically
possible without doing stuff like tunnelling.

> 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.

Digging through my mail archives, this is what I said:

"1) Because while CICNet and OARnet have peering and transit(not in effect
yet) arrangements, Michnet and CICNet does not do transit for each other."

And I included a copy of the traceroute from AS266 to AS1225.

I'm still curious where you got this false impression of the situation.
Perhaps it's just my lack of ability to communicate well.

-dorian