Cogent - Google - HE Fun

Christopher Morrow morrowc.lists at
Wed Mar 16 15:41:39 UTC 2016

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Dennis Bohn <bohn at> wrote:
> On Mar 16, 2016 10:06 AM, "Christopher Morrow" <morrowc.lists at>
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Dennis Bohn <bohn at> 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?

my guess is the same as Owen's ... 'your rfq don't mean squat'.
honestly it's not like people don't ask their cogent sales folk for
this sort of thing, it's just not cogent's (clearly, given how long
the HE/Cogent thing along has persisted) way of doing things.

Sometimes your belief system just isn't theirs.

>               and potentially what knobs
>> the providers expose to you for bgp TE functionality?
> Good thought to include that. Tnx.
> D.

More information about the NANOG mailing list