Cogent & HE

Richard A Steenbergen ras at e-gerbil.net
Thu Jun 9 18:20:59 CDT 2011


On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 07:06:29PM -0400, Brian Dickson wrote:
> 
> So, long history short, there were in fact peering disputes that had 
> one side saying, "hey, we want to peer" and the other side saying "you 
> don't have enough traffic", or "your ratio is too imbalanced", or 
> "you're my customer - tough!". And some of those got resolved by the 
> ratios changing, or the traffic levels reaching sufficiently high. (I 
> can historically mention AS 6453.)

How is that different from what I said? One side wants to peer, the 
other side says "no thanks". A list of reasons is nice, especially if 
they will actually grant peering after you meet those requirements 
(instead of just changing their requirements to deny you again :P), but 
immaterial to the point. In EVERY peering dispute there is one side who 
wants to peer, but that doesn't make this side any more noble or right, 
especially if they don't meet the requirements and are simply trying to 
force the peering through intentionally creating a partition then 
playing the propaganda game to blame the other side for it.

Everyone complained when Cogent did it to others, why should it be any 
different when HE does it to Cogent? I'm sorry but I don't accept 
"because Cogent is giving away free IPv6 transit right now" as a valid 
reason, especially when it very clearly advances their goals of 
artificially inflating their customer base specifically so they CAN 
engage in these peering disputes. It's a perfectly valid tactic that has 
been used by the finest networks for years, but at least have the 
decency to admit it for what it is, that's all I'm saying. :)

-- 
Richard A Steenbergen <ras at e-gerbil.net>       http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)




More information about the NANOG mailing list