[188324] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Wed Mar 16 11:36:04 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJUvGzC1hcFPn-_LpBXe2ryKiU4E8wNEN3BsGf891iTZwdkvBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 08:32:29 -0700
To: Dennis Bohn <bohn@adelphi.edu>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
I think the RFQ idea isn=E2=80=99t a bad one, but I doubt it will have =
any effect.
Cogent already knows that they have customers leaving because of their =
peering wars. They
don=E2=80=99t seem to care.
However, if it=E2=80=99s going to be effective, I think the RFQ has to =
be achievable by most other
networks.
I propose:
=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94
Provider must demonstrate a peering policy conducive to maintaining =
reachability to all
publicly advertised space on the internet. Provider must show that they =
have reachability
to all autonomous systems visible from route-views or other publicly =
accessible looking
glass system(s). Provider must demonstrate these capabilities for both =
IPv4 and IPv6.
=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94
In this way, you=E2=80=99ve got a succinct, easily achievable criteria =
that roughly approximates
full routes and a relatively clear message that restrictive =E2=80=9Cpay =
us or forget about reaching
our subscribers=E2=80=9D peering policy isn=E2=80=99t going to get them =
selected as your provider.
Owen
