cogent and henet not peering
Forrest Christian (List Account)
lists at packetflux.com
Sun Aug 21 00:25:44 UTC 2022
But that traffic was likely requested by and for the benefit of the person
the traffic is being sent to.
I've always found the argument that the quantity of traffic is the
indicator of who should pay to be questionable.
If I'm an end user on an eyeball user and request a big download or
streaming from a provider, isn't it me that caused that traffic to flow?
One could argue that I am the one that needs to pay.
On the other hand, one could argue that it's the provider of the content
that I requested that needs to pay, since it's their content which is being
When you get to peering between two providers it's almost impossible to
decide who needs to pay. As I mentioned above, passing that traffic is
actually to the benefit of both providers.
About the only settlement I could see is where one of the providers is
bearing most of the transport costs. For example a regional provider only
peering at one exchange point might expect some settlement costs with a big
international provider that is effectively carrying their traffic both
directions around the globe. But the quantity of that type of traffic is
likely minimal in the grand scheme of things. Even then one might argue
that connectivity to the small provider is still valuable to the customers
of the large provider.
On Fri, Aug 19, 2022, 9:32 AM VOLKAN KIRIK <volkirik at gmail.com> wrote:
> the more uploading side pays each month for the excess amount.
> as content networks are supposed to pay expenses.
> what do you think?
> 19.08.2022 18:28 tarihinde Mike Hammett yazdı:
> The problem them becomes *who* pays? When do the tables turn as to who
> The alpha gets paid and the beta does the paying?
> The network with more POPs gets paid?
> The network with more downstream ASes gets paid?
> Is it the same for IPv4 as it is for IPv6?
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
> *From: *"VOLKAN KIRIK" <volkirik at gmail.com> <volkirik at gmail.com>
> *To: *"Rubens Kuhl" <rubensk at gmail.com> <rubensk at gmail.com>
> *Cc: *nanog at nanog.org, dschaeffer at cogentco.com, peering at cogentco.com
> *Sent: *Friday, August 19, 2022 10:22:00 AM
> *Subject: *Re: cogent and henet not peering
> this is 50/50 situation. nobody has to peer for free.
> but everyone can.
> lets just say above 1:1 ratio he.net pays their own ip transit price to
> cogent for paid peering excess amount and both sides monitor traffic
> we can solve this issue by becoming middlemen worldwide...
> both operators are cheap and they could all compete in quality.
> level3 pays comcast reasonable (cheap) price (under NDA maybe?). why
> wouldnt mleber?
> but to make it fair, as he.net becomes ww tier-1 operator day-by-day,
> lets just limit pricing to excess amount of traffic
> thanks for reading
> would appreciate your support
> 19.08.2022 18:09 tarihinde Rubens Kuhl yazdı:
> OTOH, knowing that Cogent loves splitting the global Internet is one
> good reason to not contract their services.
> I think they sell traffic to their private Intranet. Which is huge,
> but doesn't encompass the whole Internet.
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 12:04 PM VOLKAN KIRIK <volkirik at gmail.com> <volkirik at gmail.com> wrote:
> lets just say cogent gives 400GE in each pop they have in common with he.net for free.
> BUT they will rate-limit he.net links to previous month's 95th percentile upload or download (which is minimum) rate (each month)
> to make ratio 1:1... to make downstream and upstream traffics fair...
> come on people,
> segmentation is bad.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NANOG