cogent and henet not peering

Sun Aug 21 00:58:45 UTC 2022

Hey all,

Removing Cogent personnel and peering departments from this thread as I'm
sure they don't appreciate the nonsense coming from this list.

Regards,
Peter Potvin | Executive Director
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Accuris Technologies Ltd.*
11-300 Earl Grey Drive, Suite #124, Kanata, Ontario K2T1C1 Canada
Email: peter.potvin at accuristechnologies.ca
Office: +1 (877) 352-6105
Network Operations Centre: +1 (877) 321-1662

On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 8:51 PM VOLKAN KIRIK <volkirik at gmail.com> wrote:

> yea whatever..
>
>  its upto mike leber and dave schaeffer to decide. they can either accept
> or reject the solution
>
> I have been always believing content creator/provider should pay expenses
> (at least excess traffic).
>
> because they put their server in some datacenter and reach all of the
> internet.. their backbone expenses are less..
>
> i can understand that todays datacenters including he.net are interested
> to participate in 200-300 IXPs.
>
> well that acceptable. it should be considered too
>
> so i would offer both companies 3 cent per mbps for excess traffic.
>
> ok bye
>
>
> 21.08.2022 03:25 tarihinde Forrest Christian (List Account) yazdı:
>
> 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
> distributed.
>
> 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
>> pays?
>>
>> 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/>
>> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
>> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
>> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
>> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
>> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
>> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
>> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
>> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
>> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
>> ------------------------------
>> *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.
>>
>>
>> Rubens
>>
>> 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...
>>
>> okay?
>>
>> fine?
>>
>> come on people,
>>
>> segmentation is bad.
>>
>>
>>

-- 
The information contained in this message may be privileged, confidential 
and protected from disclosure. This message is intended only for the 
designated recipient(s). It is subject to access, review and disclosure by 
the sender's Email System Administrator. If you have received this message 
in error, please advise by return e-mail so that our address records can be 
corrected and please delete immediately without reading, copying or 
forwarding to others. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or 
distribution is prohibited.
Copyright © 2022 Accuris Technologies Ltd. All 
Rights Reserved.

L'information contenue dans ce message pourrait être de 
nature privilégiée, confidentielle et protégée contre toute divulgation. Ce 
message est destiné à l'usage exclusif du(des) destinataire(s) visé(s). Le 
gestionnaire de système du courrier électronique de l'expéditeur pourrait 
avoir accès à ce message, l'examiner et le divulguer. Si ce message vous 
est transmis par erreur, veuillez nous en aviser par courrier électronique 
à notre adresse, afin que l'on puisse corriger nos registres, puis veuillez 
le supprimer immédiatement, sans le lire, le copier ou le transmettre à des 
tiers. Tout examen, toute utilisation, divulgation ou distribution non 
autorisé de cette information est interdit.
Droit d'auteur © 

2022 
Accuris Technologies Ltd. Tous droits réservés.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20220820/67fc8388/attachment.html>