[187219] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tore Anderson)
Sat Jan 23 05:43:21 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2016 11:43:09 +0100
From: Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no>
To: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGV2XdoxtCHfoKNXzjJaKnZ1Jw4W2zLmZyykfPfBOyufTw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
William,
> Don't get me wrong. You can cure this fraud without going to extremes.
> An open peering policy doesn't require you to buy hardware for the
> other guy's convenience. Let him reimburse you or procure the hardware
> you spec out if he wants to peer. Nor do you have to extend your
> network to a location convenient for the other guy. Pick neutral
> locations where you're willing to peer and let the other guy build to
> them or pay you to build from there to him. Nor does an open peering
> policy require you to give the other guy a free ride on your
> international backbone: you can swap packets for just the regions of
> your network in which he's willing to establish a connection. But not
> ratios and traffic minimums -- those are not egalitarian, they're
> designed only to exclude the powerless.
>
> Taken in this context, the Cogent/HE IPv6 peering spat is very simple:
> Cogent is -the- bad actor. 100%.
I'm curious: How do you know that Cogent didn't offer to peer under
terms such as the ones you mention, but that those were refused by HE?
Tore
