Re: AW: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[William Herrin <bill () herrin us>]

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 7:40 AM, Jon Lewis <jlewis () lewis org> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2016, William Herrin wrote:
> > It's Cogent's fault because: double-billing. Google should not have to
> > pay Cogent for a service which you have already paid Cogent to provide
> > to you. Cogent's demand is unethical. They intentionally fail to
> > deliver on the basic service expectation you pay them for and refuse
> > to do so unless a third party to your contract also pays them.
>
> That's one way of looking at it.
>
> However, which of your transits don't bill for bits exchanged with other
> customers of theirs...and how are they or you accounting for that traffic?

Hi Jon,

As you know, there is a technology limitation in how routing works
which says that for any given block of addresses you can, absent
extraordinary measures, have a peering relationship or a transit
relationship but not both. If both parties choose to have a transit
relationship, that excludes a peering relationship for the relevant
blocks of addresses. And that's OK when _both sides_ choose it.

In related news, no ethical conundrum demands defiance of the law of gravity.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William Herrin ................ herrin () dirtside com  bill () herrin us
Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>