On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 5:43 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
Or, if you feel that Cogent's stubborn insistence on partitioning the global v6 internet
if A does not peer with B, then for all A and B they are evil partitioners?
can we lower the rhetoric?
randy
I thought we already had this conversation a few years ago, but my memory is short, so we can have it again. ^_^; No, it's not an issue of A not peering with B, it's A selling "internet transit" for a known subset of the internet rather than the whole kit and kaboodle. I rather think that if you're going to put a sign out saying "we sell internet transit", it *is* incumbent on you to make a best effort to ensure you have as complete a copy of the full routing table as possible; otherwise, it's potentially a fraudulent claim. At least, that's what it would be in any other industry if you sold something under a particular name while knowing the whole time it didn't fit the definition of the product. I know in the service station industry, I'd get in a lot of trouble if I sold "premium unleaded gasoline" that was really just the same as the "regular unleaded" with a different label. It's fortunate that we're not a regulated industry, so there's nobody checking up on us to make sure that if we sell "internet transit", it's not really "internet transit, minus level3, sprint, ATT, and a bunch of other networks that won't get your prefixes from me". It all boils down to 'caveat emptor' -- not all uses of the word "internet transit" mean the same thing--check carefully when buying, and make sure you make informed decisions. Matt (now with 50% less rhetoric!)