[187228] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Doug Barton)
Sat Jan 23 15:21:15 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us>
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2016 12:21:09 -0800
In-Reply-To: <20160123114309.628c6236@envy.w5.y.home>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 01/23/2016 02:43 AM, Tore Anderson wrote:
> 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?
Because Cogent has repeatedly stated that they refuse to peer, period?
Doug
