[188322] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dennis Bohn)
Wed Mar 16 11:22:10 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <CAL9jLaae0v2J=e+ZGmqJw8uHj0rizjEETqRjsHF6a=-EYpn=jg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 11:22:05 -0400
From: Dennis Bohn <bohn@adelphi.edu>
To: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Mar 16, 2016 10:06 AM, "Christopher Morrow" <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Dennis Bohn <bohn@adelphi.edu> wrote:
> > So if someone (say an eyeball network) was putting out a RFQ for a gig
say
> > of upstream cxn and wanted to spec full reachability to the full V6 net,
> > what would the wording for that spec look like?
> > Would that get $provider's attention?
>
> "We would like transit services to the full ipv4 and ipv6 addressable
> space, we would like our prefixes to be advertised to the whole of the
> above space as well."
>
> then you'd by one (some) connection(s) from 'best option #1' and
> one(some) connection(s) to 'next best option'.
>
> I'm not sure 'rfq' is required here is it? ....
I was thinking RFQ with specific requirements might get cogent attention
more than a call. Sure they wouldn't change policy for me, but if they were
unable to meet quote requirements repeatedly it might have some effect...
or am I dreaming?
and potentially what knobs
> the providers expose to you for bgp TE functionality?
Good thought to include that. Tnx.
D.
