Re: Peering versus Transit

[Vadim Antonov <avg () quake net>]

>         Pointing default to somebody over IXP is simply theft.
    
>    Straw man.  You're the first one to substitute "default" for "peer".

There are two ways to have packets go where no BGP routes are announced --
by adding bogus static or whatever routes or by pointing default.  Both
are malicious.  Note that accepting third party routes is also something
not generally welcomed.  If you're not given routes you're _not_ expected
to send your packets.  Consider that a "no trespassing" notice.

Backbones are _private_ property.  As such the operators are in their
right to demand that others leave their equipment alone.

>    If that were true, it would support your argument.  Since it's not,
>    don't you agree that it simply makes the rest of your argument even
>    more suspect?

Example, please, when somebody conforming to the stated policies was
denied peering?

(Plase note that the process of establishing bilaterial agreements
may be rather lengthy, considering that it has to go through all
kinds of financial and legal bureaucracy).

--vadim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -