[187743] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Cogent & Google IPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Wed Feb 24 15:48:27 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: <1906151786.11094.1456345593687.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 15:48:22 -0500
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
=E2=80=9CTier One=E2=80=9D used to mean SFI or customer downstream to =
every prefix on the =E2=80=98Net. Today it is more like =E2=80=9Ctransit =
free=E2=80=9D, since some =E2=80=9Ctier one=E2=80=9D providers have paid =
peering.
And Ricky is wrong, the vast majority of prefixes Cogent routes have =
zero dollars behind them. Cogent gets paid by customers, not peers. (At =
least not the big ones.)
--=20
TTFN,
patrick
> On Feb 24, 2016, at 3:26 PM, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
>=20
> Isn't that how "Tier 1s" have always operated? Like, always? Customers =
or peers with peers subject to various requirements.=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> -----=20
> Mike Hammett=20
> Intelligent Computing Solutions=20
> http://www.ics-il.com=20
>=20
> Midwest-IX=20
> http://www.midwest-ix.com=20
>=20
> ----- Original Message -----
>=20
> From: "Ricky Beam" <jfbeam@gmail.com>=20
> To: "Matt Hoppes" <mhoppes@indigowireless.com>=20
> Cc: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org>=20
> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 2:18:24 PM=20
> Subject: Re: Cogent & Google IPv6=20
>=20
> On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 14:46:56 -0500, Matt Hoppes=20
> <mhoppes@indigowireless.com> wrote:=20
>> Isn't that how the Internet is suppose to work?=20
>=20
> Perhaps. But that's not how *Cogent* works. They have a very idiotic =
view=20
> of "Tier 1". They have no transit connections with anyone; someone is=20=
> paying them for every prefix they accept.=20
>=20
> Translation: No one in their right mind does business with Cogent.=20
