[188170] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Mar 10 11:19:07 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGVTNXXeUNa_AXCK6gk5G3DATEr5XERmnENBKddVmD1z5g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 08:14:43 -0800
To: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> On Mar 10, 2016, at 07:55 , William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
>=20
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Dennis Burgess
> <dmburgess@linktechs.net> wrote:
>> Not wishing to get into a pissing war with who is right or wrong, but =
it sounds like
>> google already pays or has an agreement with cogent for v4, as that's =
unaffected,
>> cogent says google is simply not advertising v6 prefixes to them, so, =
how is
>> that cogent's fault?
>=20
> Hi Dennis,
>=20
> It's Cogent's fault because: double-billing. Google should not have to
> pay Cogent for a service which you have already paid Cogent to provide
> to you. Cogent's demand is unethical. They intentionally fail to
> deliver on the basic service expectation you pay them for and refuse
> to do so unless a third party to your contract also pays them.
>=20
> Google, by contrast, makes no demand that Cogent pay them even though
> you are not paying Google for service. They offer "open peering," a
> free interconnect via many neutral data centers.
In fairness, however, this is because he is not Google=E2=80=99s =
customer, he
is Google=E2=80=99s product. Google is selling him (well, information =
about him
anyway) to their customers. They gather this information by offering
certain things he wants in exchange for him allowing them to collect
and redistribute this data.
Everything you say above is true, but let=E2=80=99s be clear where the =
customer
vs. product relationships truly are.
Owen
