[188200] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: AW: Cogent - Google - HE Fun
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Herrin)
Fri Mar 11 09:16:47 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
X-Really-To: <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.1603110731270.6833@soloth.lewis.org>
From: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 09:16:18 -0500
To: Jon Lewis <jlewis@lewis.org>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 7:40 AM, Jon Lewis <jlewis@lewis.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2016, William Herrin wrote:
>> 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.
>
> That's one way of looking at it.
>
> However, which of your transits don't bill for bits exchanged with other
> customers of theirs...and how are they or you accounting for that traffic?
Hi Jon,
As you know, there is a technology limitation in how routing works
which says that for any given block of addresses you can, absent
extraordinary measures, have a peering relationship or a transit
relationship but not both. If both parties choose to have a transit
relationship, that excludes a peering relationship for the relevant
blocks of addresses. And that's OK when _both sides_ choose it.
In related news, no ethical conundrum demands defiance of the law of gravity.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
