[NANOG]Proposal for HENETIX: A Global IXP with High-Discounted Peering and Transit Services
*Subject:* Proposal for HENETIX: A Global IXP with High-Discounted Peering and Transit Services *Dear Mr. Mike Leber, and interested NANOG members * I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to you regarding the recent pricing structure adjustment for BGP tunnelbroker services, which were previously offered as a free (feeless) solution. Given the increasing demand for cost-effective and scalable interconnectivity solutions, I would like to propose the establishment of *HENETIX*, a global Internet Exchange Point (IXP) designed to facilitate high-discounted peering and transit services across a worldwide network. The Concept of HENETIX HENETIX would operate as a global IXP, providing Layer 2 transport services without additional per-port or per-transport costs, allowing participants to exchange traffic with remote peers efficiently. Unlike traditional IXPs that impose substantial fees for remote peering or rely on third-party transport providers, HENETIX would integrate transport services within a unified pricing model. This approach would align with industry trends favoring cost efficiency, network expansion, and improved global routing performance. Supporting Global Connectivity: Comparable Industry Examples Several networks and IXPs around the world have adopted similar models to reduce costs and improve accessibility. Some notable examples include: * *PacketFabric* and *Megaport*: Both platforms offer global Layer 2 connectivity with a simplified pricing model that integrates transport within the overall service, enabling customers to reach multiple regions without complex fee structures. * *Equinix Fabric*: Provides global interconnection across multiple markets with predictable pricing, reducing the barriers for enterprises and ISPs to participate in global exchanges. * *DE-CIX, AMS-IX, and LINX*: While these IXPs operate within traditional frameworks, they have introduced remote peering models that enable global reach with relatively lower costs compared to traditional carrier-based transport. Legal and Regulatory Considerations The need for affordable interconnection services is not only a market demand but also a recognized regulatory priority in many regions. Organizations such as the *FCC (Federal Communications Commission, USA)* and the *European Commission* have emphasized the importance of neutral and cost-effective peering points to foster competition and improve internet resilience. Additionally, policies encouraging open interconnection are being promoted by various regulatory bodies to prevent monopolistic pricing practices in the transit market. Benefits of HENETIX A HENETIX platform would provide significant advantages to both large-scale and emerging network operators: 1. *Cost Reduction*: A unified membership model would eliminate high transport fees, making global interconnection more affordable. 2. *Enhanced Network Performance*: By reducing dependency on Tier-1 transit providers, participating networks would achieve better latency, redundancy, and overall performance. 3. *Simplified Peering*: A single interconnection framework would allow participants to seamlessly peer with networks worldwide without dealing with individual transport providers. 4. *Increased Market Accessibility*: Smaller ISPs, data centers, and cloud providers would be able to join a global interconnection fabric without financial constraints. 5. *Scalability*: As internet traffic demands continue to grow, a streamlined interconnection model would ensure scalability without prohibitive infrastructure investments. Proposal and Next Steps Given HE.NET's extensive network infrastructure and existing peering relationships, establishing HENETIX as a global IXP would be a strategic extension of your current services. By leveraging your existing assets and expertise, this initiative could position HE.NET as a leader in cost-effective global interconnection solutions. I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss this proposal further and explore potential strategies for implementation. Please let me know a convenient time for a meeting or call to delve deeper into this concept. Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your thoughts on this matter. Best regards, VOLKAN SALİH ANTAKYA/HATAY/TURKIYE +90 540 415 5555 +90 540 489 9999
Mike Leber CEO, Hurricane Electric 760 Mission Court Fremont, CA 94539 United States Subject: Request to Reinstate Feeless BGP Sessions with Enhanced Security Measures Dear Mr. Leber, and interested NANOG members; I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to respectfully request the reinstatement of feeless BGP sessions by Hurricane Electric, considering the latest advancements in routing security and spam prevention. Recent developments in Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) validation have significantly enhanced the security of internet routing, effectively mitigating the risk of man-in-the-middle attacks. RPKI ensures that only legitimate Autonomous Systems (AS) can announce specific IP prefixes, thereby increasing trust and reliability in BGP sessions. Additionally, to address concerns related to email abuse, it is now feasible to implement filtering on mail server ports (such as 25, 465, and 587) for feeless BGP sessions. By applying such restrictions, potential spam-related issues can be proactively managed while maintaining the accessibility and robustness of the service. The restoration of feeless BGP sessions, with these enhanced security measures in place, would provide substantial benefits to the global internet community by fostering network expansion, enhancing resilience, and ensuring a more secure routing environment. I sincerely appreciate the invaluable services that Hurricane Electric provides and trust that you will consider this request in light of the latest security improvements. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I look forward to your response. *Best regards,* VOLKAN SALİH ANTAKYA/HATAY/TURKIYE +90 540 415 5555 +90 540 489 9999
1. This is AI slop, can't we write emails ourselves anymore? 2. Hurricane Electric has stated that the abuse they saw made offering free BGP tunnels not worth it anymore, I believe it extended beyond simple types of abuse that can be filtered, and it included content networks not trusting HE downstreams due to the fact that many of them were tunneled. you can still use their regular IPv6 tunnels. 3. A global layer2 "IX" already exists for relatively low cost, Cogent has a "Global Peer Exchange" product where you only pay for traffic you do on your port.
[ caveat: we are happy users of both HE and Cogent ]
2. Hurricane Electric has stated that the abuse they saw made offering free BGP tunnels not worth it anymore
i am impressed/surprised that they have done it for so long. iij stopped a couple of decades ago; the thought being that its utility in deploying ipv6 became overweighed by the pain.
3. A global layer2 "IX" already exists for relatively low cost, Cogent has a "Global Peer Exchange" product where you only pay for traffic you do on your port.
i kinda wonder how this use of vlans scales under the covers randy
3. A global layer2 "IX" already exists for relatively low cost, Cogent has a "Global Peer Exchange" product where you only pay for traffic you do on your port.
i kinda wonder how this use of vlans scales under the covers. ... Right now the participation is low and the traffic levels are very manageable. With QinQ, I think this could scale logically to thousands of participants per city hub. Great problem to have if that occurs. Deepak
I’m not sure what you are attempting to gain by CCing this list on messages like this, but please stop. On Sun, Mar 2, 2025 at 13:16 Volkan SALiH <volkan.salih.06@gmail.com> wrote:
Mike Leber CEO, Hurricane Electric 760 Mission Court Fremont, CA 94539 United States
Subject: Request to Reinstate Feeless BGP Sessions with Enhanced Security Measures
Dear Mr. Leber, and interested NANOG members;
I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to respectfully request the reinstatement of feeless BGP sessions by Hurricane Electric, considering the latest advancements in routing security and spam prevention.
Recent developments in Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) validation have significantly enhanced the security of internet routing, effectively mitigating the risk of man-in-the-middle attacks. RPKI ensures that only legitimate Autonomous Systems (AS) can announce specific IP prefixes, thereby increasing trust and reliability in BGP sessions.
Additionally, to address concerns related to email abuse, it is now feasible to implement filtering on mail server ports (such as 25, 465, and 587) for feeless BGP sessions. By applying such restrictions, potential spam-related issues can be proactively managed while maintaining the accessibility and robustness of the service.
The restoration of feeless BGP sessions, with these enhanced security measures in place, would provide substantial benefits to the global internet community by fostering network expansion, enhancing resilience, and ensuring a more secure routing environment.
I sincerely appreciate the invaluable services that Hurricane Electric provides and trust that you will consider this request in light of the latest security improvements. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I look forward to your response.
*Best regards,* VOLKAN SALİH ANTAKYA/HATAY/TURKIYE +90 540 415 5555 +90 540 489 9999
_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/PEJN7R2X...
Attention to Reinstate Feeless BGP Sessions with HE. It's in the subject. On Sun, Mar 2, 2025 at 5:03 PM Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:
I’m not sure what you are attempting to gain by CCing this list on messages like this, but please stop.
On Sun, Mar 2, 2025 at 13:16 Volkan SALiH <volkan.salih.06@gmail.com> wrote:
Mike Leber CEO, Hurricane Electric 760 Mission Court Fremont, CA 94539 United States
Subject: Request to Reinstate Feeless BGP Sessions with Enhanced Security Measures
Dear Mr. Leber, and interested NANOG members;
I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to respectfully request the reinstatement of feeless BGP sessions by Hurricane Electric, considering the latest advancements in routing security and spam prevention.
Recent developments in Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) validation have significantly enhanced the security of internet routing, effectively mitigating the risk of man-in-the-middle attacks. RPKI ensures that only legitimate Autonomous Systems (AS) can announce specific IP prefixes, thereby increasing trust and reliability in BGP sessions.
Additionally, to address concerns related to email abuse, it is now feasible to implement filtering on mail server ports (such as 25, 465, and 587) for feeless BGP sessions. By applying such restrictions, potential spam-related issues can be proactively managed while maintaining the accessibility and robustness of the service.
The restoration of feeless BGP sessions, with these enhanced security measures in place, would provide substantial benefits to the global internet community by fostering network expansion, enhancing resilience, and ensuring a more secure routing environment.
I sincerely appreciate the invaluable services that Hurricane Electric provides and trust that you will consider this request in light of the latest security improvements. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I look forward to your response.
*Best regards,* VOLKAN SALİH ANTAKYA/HATAY/TURKIYE +90 540 415 5555 +90 540 489 9999
_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/PEJN7R2X... _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/N32G7Y7O...
It's not the first time OP has sent emails to the list or CC'ed the list on these emails that are IMO irrelevant, not to mention the fact that a large portion of what they've said has been disproven (see their previous email regarding the global IX with discounted peering and transit services). Can the list moderators do anything here? Hurricane Electric, like any other business, are entitled to run their network in any way they see fit. If their customers aren't happy with how they do operate their network, they can look for another transit provider that does meet their requirements. There are plenty of them out there. Regards, Christopher Hawker ________________________________ From: Josh Luthman via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> Sent: Tuesday, March 4, 2025 12:35 AM To: North American Network Operators Group <nanog@lists.nanog.org> Cc: info@he.net <info@he.net>; nanog@nanog.org <nanog@nanog.org>; Josh Luthman <josh@imaginenetworksllc.com> Subject: [NANOG] Re: [NANOG]Re: Request to Reinstate Feeless BGP Sessions with Enhanced Security Measures Attention to Reinstate Feeless BGP Sessions with HE. It's in the subject. On Sun, Mar 2, 2025 at 5:03 PM Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:
I’m not sure what you are attempting to gain by CCing this list on messages like this, but please stop.
On Sun, Mar 2, 2025 at 13:16 Volkan SALiH <volkan.salih.06@gmail.com> wrote:
Mike Leber CEO, Hurricane Electric 760 Mission Court Fremont, CA 94539 United States
Subject: Request to Reinstate Feeless BGP Sessions with Enhanced Security Measures
Dear Mr. Leber, and interested NANOG members;
I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to respectfully request the reinstatement of feeless BGP sessions by Hurricane Electric, considering the latest advancements in routing security and spam prevention.
Recent developments in Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) validation have significantly enhanced the security of internet routing, effectively mitigating the risk of man-in-the-middle attacks. RPKI ensures that only legitimate Autonomous Systems (AS) can announce specific IP prefixes, thereby increasing trust and reliability in BGP sessions.
Additionally, to address concerns related to email abuse, it is now feasible to implement filtering on mail server ports (such as 25, 465, and 587) for feeless BGP sessions. By applying such restrictions, potential spam-related issues can be proactively managed while maintaining the accessibility and robustness of the service.
The restoration of feeless BGP sessions, with these enhanced security measures in place, would provide substantial benefits to the global internet community by fostering network expansion, enhancing resilience, and ensuring a more secure routing environment.
I sincerely appreciate the invaluable services that Hurricane Electric provides and trust that you will consider this request in light of the latest security improvements. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I look forward to your response.
*Best regards,* VOLKAN SALİH ANTAKYA/HATAY/TURKIYE +90 540 415 5555 +90 540 489 9999
_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/PEJN7R2X... _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/N32G7Y7O...
NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/JUS5TRIN...
There are plenty of them out there.
As a rural network operator, that is simply false. We have had to build fiber about 20 route miles ($1MM) to reach our second provider. Our first provider was 4 route miles. Required BGP fees are a disease and messages like this produce awareness for those of us that don't have a "plenty" of options in a single building. On Mon, Mar 3, 2025 at 8:56 AM Christopher Hawker <chris@thesysadmin.au> wrote:
It's not the first time OP has sent emails to the list or CC'ed the list on these emails that are IMO irrelevant, not to mention the fact that a large portion of what they've said has been disproven (see their previous email regarding the global IX with discounted peering and transit services). Can the list moderators do anything here?
Hurricane Electric, like any other business, are entitled to run their network in any way they see fit. If their customers aren't happy with how they do operate their network, they can look for another transit provider that does meet their requirements. There are plenty of them out there.
Regards, Christopher Hawker ------------------------------ *From:* Josh Luthman via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 4, 2025 12:35 AM *To:* North American Network Operators Group <nanog@lists.nanog.org> *Cc:* info@he.net <info@he.net>; nanog@nanog.org <nanog@nanog.org>; Josh Luthman <josh@imaginenetworksllc.com> *Subject:* [NANOG] Re: [NANOG]Re: Request to Reinstate Feeless BGP Sessions with Enhanced Security Measures
Attention to Reinstate Feeless BGP Sessions with HE. It's in the subject.
On Sun, Mar 2, 2025 at 5:03 PM Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:
I’m not sure what you are attempting to gain by CCing this list on messages like this, but please stop.
On Sun, Mar 2, 2025 at 13:16 Volkan SALiH <volkan.salih.06@gmail.com> wrote:
Mike Leber CEO, Hurricane Electric 760 Mission Court Fremont, CA 94539 United States
Subject: Request to Reinstate Feeless BGP Sessions with Enhanced Security Measures
Dear Mr. Leber, and interested NANOG members;
I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to respectfully request the reinstatement of feeless BGP sessions by Hurricane Electric, considering the latest advancements in routing security and spam prevention.
Recent developments in Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) validation have significantly enhanced the security of internet routing, effectively mitigating the risk of man-in-the-middle attacks. RPKI ensures that only legitimate Autonomous Systems (AS) can announce specific IP prefixes, thereby increasing trust and reliability in BGP sessions.
Additionally, to address concerns related to email abuse, it is now feasible to implement filtering on mail server ports (such as 25, 465, and 587) for feeless BGP sessions. By applying such restrictions, potential spam-related issues can be proactively managed while maintaining the accessibility and robustness of the service.
The restoration of feeless BGP sessions, with these enhanced security measures in place, would provide substantial benefits to the global internet community by fostering network expansion, enhancing resilience, and ensuring a more secure routing environment.
I sincerely appreciate the invaluable services that Hurricane Electric provides and trust that you will consider this request in light of the latest security improvements. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I look forward to your response.
*Best regards,* VOLKAN SALİH ANTAKYA/HATAY/TURKIYE +90 540 415 5555 +90 540 489 9999
_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/PEJN7R2X...
_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/N32G7Y7O... _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/JUS5TRIN...
My point still stands - how you get to them in what one could consider an “off-net location” is for you to consider. You made a business decision to build out your network location in the area you did, just like HE made the decision to charge fees for services they charge for. If you didn't ask about their fee schedule during a feasibility study prior to obtaining a service from them yet obtained the service from them regardless that's on you to deal with, not your chosen upstream. And regardless of whether you have a DC next door with every T1 provider or 50 miles away, there are still plenty of transit providers. You just need to work out how to get to who you want to connect to. Regards, Christopher Hawker Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef> ________________________________ From: Josh Luthman <josh@imaginenetworksllc.com> Sent: Tuesday, 4 March 2025 1:02:21 am To: Christopher Hawker <chris@thesysadmin.au> Cc: North American Network Operators Group <nanog@lists.nanog.org> Subject: Re: [NANOG] Re: [NANOG]Re: Request to Reinstate Feeless BGP Sessions with Enhanced Security Measures
There are plenty of them out there.
As a rural network operator, that is simply false. We have had to build fiber about 20 route miles ($1MM) to reach our second provider. Our first provider was 4 route miles. Required BGP fees are a disease and messages like this produce awareness for those of us that don't have a "plenty" of options in a single building. On Mon, Mar 3, 2025 at 8:56 AM Christopher Hawker <chris@thesysadmin.au<mailto:chris@thesysadmin.au>> wrote: It's not the first time OP has sent emails to the list or CC'ed the list on these emails that are IMO irrelevant, not to mention the fact that a large portion of what they've said has been disproven (see their previous email regarding the global IX with discounted peering and transit services). Can the list moderators do anything here? Hurricane Electric, like any other business, are entitled to run their network in any way they see fit. If their customers aren't happy with how they do operate their network, they can look for another transit provider that does meet their requirements. There are plenty of them out there. Regards, Christopher Hawker ________________________________ From: Josh Luthman via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org<mailto:nanog@lists.nanog.org>> Sent: Tuesday, March 4, 2025 12:35 AM To: North American Network Operators Group <nanog@lists.nanog.org<mailto:nanog@lists.nanog.org>> Cc: info@he.net<mailto:info@he.net> <info@he.net<mailto:info@he.net>>; nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org> <nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org>>; Josh Luthman <josh@imaginenetworksllc.com<mailto:josh@imaginenetworksllc.com>> Subject: [NANOG] Re: [NANOG]Re: Request to Reinstate Feeless BGP Sessions with Enhanced Security Measures Attention to Reinstate Feeless BGP Sessions with HE. It's in the subject. On Sun, Mar 2, 2025 at 5:03 PM Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc<mailto:beecher@beecher.cc>> wrote:
I’m not sure what you are attempting to gain by CCing this list on messages like this, but please stop.
On Sun, Mar 2, 2025 at 13:16 Volkan SALiH <volkan.salih.06@gmail.com<mailto:volkan.salih.06@gmail.com>> wrote:
Mike Leber CEO, Hurricane Electric 760 Mission Court Fremont, CA 94539 United States
Subject: Request to Reinstate Feeless BGP Sessions with Enhanced Security Measures
Dear Mr. Leber, and interested NANOG members;
I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to respectfully request the reinstatement of feeless BGP sessions by Hurricane Electric, considering the latest advancements in routing security and spam prevention.
Recent developments in Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) validation have significantly enhanced the security of internet routing, effectively mitigating the risk of man-in-the-middle attacks. RPKI ensures that only legitimate Autonomous Systems (AS) can announce specific IP prefixes, thereby increasing trust and reliability in BGP sessions.
Additionally, to address concerns related to email abuse, it is now feasible to implement filtering on mail server ports (such as 25, 465, and 587) for feeless BGP sessions. By applying such restrictions, potential spam-related issues can be proactively managed while maintaining the accessibility and robustness of the service.
The restoration of feeless BGP sessions, with these enhanced security measures in place, would provide substantial benefits to the global internet community by fostering network expansion, enhancing resilience, and ensuring a more secure routing environment.
I sincerely appreciate the invaluable services that Hurricane Electric provides and trust that you will consider this request in light of the latest security improvements. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I look forward to your response.
*Best regards,* VOLKAN SALİH ANTAKYA/HATAY/TURKIYE +90 540 415 5555 +90 540 489 9999
_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/PEJN7R2X... _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/N32G7Y7O...
NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/JUS5TRIN...
If you didn't ask about their fee schedule during a feasibility study
My point still stands as well. Volkan and myself choose to post to make awareness of this issue. prior to obtaining a service from them yet obtained the service from them regardless that's on you to deal with, not your chosen upstream. What does it matter if they are the only option within 100 miles?
there are still plenty of transit providers
No, there isn't. I literally just got an email from HE minutes ago and their closest point is an 80 mile drive. As I stated in my previous post, "We have had to build fiber about 20 route miles ($1MM) to reach our second provider. Our first provider was 4 route miles." Not everyone has the luxury of spending a million bucks to get a second fiber option. Competition is not a luxury everyone has. Bringing awareness to (IMO bad) practices like BGP fees is a good thing for network operators. On Mon, Mar 3, 2025 at 9:22 AM Christopher Hawker <chris@thesysadmin.au> wrote:
My point still stands - how you get to them in what one could consider an “off-net location” is for you to consider. You made a business decision to build out your network location in the area you did, just like HE made the decision to charge fees for services they charge for. If you didn't ask about their fee schedule during a feasibility study prior to obtaining a service from them yet obtained the service from them regardless that's on you to deal with, not your chosen upstream.
And regardless of whether you have a DC next door with every T1 provider or 50 miles away, there are still plenty of transit providers. You just need to work out how to get to who you want to connect to.
Regards, Christopher Hawker
Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef> ------------------------------ *From:* Josh Luthman <josh@imaginenetworksllc.com> *Sent:* Tuesday, 4 March 2025 1:02:21 am *To:* Christopher Hawker <chris@thesysadmin.au> *Cc:* North American Network Operators Group <nanog@lists.nanog.org> *Subject:* Re: [NANOG] Re: [NANOG]Re: Request to Reinstate Feeless BGP Sessions with Enhanced Security Measures
There are plenty of them out there.
As a rural network operator, that is simply false. We have had to build fiber about 20 route miles ($1MM) to reach our second provider. Our first provider was 4 route miles.
Required BGP fees are a disease and messages like this produce awareness for those of us that don't have a "plenty" of options in a single building.
On Mon, Mar 3, 2025 at 8:56 AM Christopher Hawker <chris@thesysadmin.au> wrote:
It's not the first time OP has sent emails to the list or CC'ed the list on these emails that are IMO irrelevant, not to mention the fact that a large portion of what they've said has been disproven (see their previous email regarding the global IX with discounted peering and transit services). Can the list moderators do anything here?
Hurricane Electric, like any other business, are entitled to run their network in any way they see fit. If their customers aren't happy with how they do operate their network, they can look for another transit provider that does meet their requirements. There are plenty of them out there.
Regards, Christopher Hawker ------------------------------ *From:* Josh Luthman via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 4, 2025 12:35 AM *To:* North American Network Operators Group <nanog@lists.nanog.org> *Cc:* info@he.net <info@he.net>; nanog@nanog.org <nanog@nanog.org>; Josh Luthman <josh@imaginenetworksllc.com> *Subject:* [NANOG] Re: [NANOG]Re: Request to Reinstate Feeless BGP Sessions with Enhanced Security Measures
Attention to Reinstate Feeless BGP Sessions with HE. It's in the subject.
On Sun, Mar 2, 2025 at 5:03 PM Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:
I’m not sure what you are attempting to gain by CCing this list on messages like this, but please stop.
On Sun, Mar 2, 2025 at 13:16 Volkan SALiH <volkan.salih.06@gmail.com> wrote:
Mike Leber CEO, Hurricane Electric 760 Mission Court Fremont, CA 94539 United States
Subject: Request to Reinstate Feeless BGP Sessions with Enhanced Security Measures
Dear Mr. Leber, and interested NANOG members;
I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to respectfully request the reinstatement of feeless BGP sessions by Hurricane Electric, considering the latest advancements in routing security and spam prevention.
Recent developments in Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) validation have significantly enhanced the security of internet routing, effectively mitigating the risk of man-in-the-middle attacks. RPKI ensures that only legitimate Autonomous Systems (AS) can announce specific IP prefixes, thereby increasing trust and reliability in BGP sessions.
Additionally, to address concerns related to email abuse, it is now feasible to implement filtering on mail server ports (such as 25, 465, and 587) for feeless BGP sessions. By applying such restrictions, potential spam-related issues can be proactively managed while maintaining the accessibility and robustness of the service.
The restoration of feeless BGP sessions, with these enhanced security measures in place, would provide substantial benefits to the global internet community by fostering network expansion, enhancing resilience, and ensuring a more secure routing environment.
I sincerely appreciate the invaluable services that Hurricane Electric provides and trust that you will consider this request in light of the latest security improvements. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I look forward to your response.
*Best regards,* VOLKAN SALİH ANTAKYA/HATAY/TURKIYE +90 540 415 5555 +90 540 489 9999
_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/PEJN7R2X...
_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/N32G7Y7O... _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/JUS5TRIN...
On 3/03/25 15:46, Josh Luthman via NANOG wrote:
What does it matter if they are the only option within 100 miles?
there are still plenty of transit providers No, there isn't. I literally just got an email from HE minutes ago and their closest point is an 80 mile drive. As I stated in my previous post, "We have had to build fiber about 20 route miles ($1MM) to reach our second provider. Our first provider was 4 route miles." Not everyone has the luxury of spending a million bucks to get a second fiber option.
That means HE had to build fiber about 100 miles ($5MM) to reach the location where you are peering with them. Not everyone has the luxury of spending 5 million bucks to peer with you for free.
Competition is not a luxury everyone has. Bringing awareness to (IMO bad) practices like BGP fees is a good thing for network operators.
You're welcome to become the competition. It should be about 100 miles ($5MM) to reach a place 100 miles away where there's another option. Will you be able to make enough money to justify this, or will you have to charge fees to your downstreams?
Something was up with the headers on this message delivering multiple copies to NANOG. Possibly Thunderbird inserted an extra CC to the list. /This/ message only has To: nanog@lists.nanog.org and should be delivered once. If so, nothing is wrong the list and it was my fault for not checking the CC header. I'm also seeing most but not all list messages with To: NANOG From: NANOG. To see who actually sent the message I have to check the message source as it's saved in X-MailFrom. Is this the new expected behaviour after the server upgrade? On 8/03/25 13:51, nanog--- via NANOG wrote:
On 3/03/25 15:46, Josh Luthman via NANOG wrote:
What does it matter if they are the only option within 100 miles?
there are still plenty of transit providers No, there isn't. I literally just got an email from HE minutes ago and their closest point is an 80 mile drive. As I stated in my previous post, "We have had to build fiber about 20 route miles ($1MM) to reach our second provider. Our first provider was 4 route miles." Not everyone has the luxury of spending a million bucks to get a second fiber option.
That means HE had to build fiber about 100 miles ($5MM) to reach the location where you are peering with them. Not everyone has the luxury of spending 5 million bucks to peer with you for free.
Competition is not a luxury everyone has. Bringing awareness to (IMO bad) practices like BGP fees is a good thing for network operators.
You're welcome to become the competition. It should be about 100 miles ($5MM) to reach a place 100 miles away where there's another option. Will you be able to make enough money to justify this, or will you have to charge fees to your downstreams?
_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/D7N7VDMR...
I do not run the list, but I have extensive experience with mailman.. inline: — Sent from my 📱iPhone
On Mar 8, 2025, at 09:26, nanog--- via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
Something was up with the headers on this message delivering multiple copies to NANOG. Possibly Thunderbird inserted an extra CC to the list. /This/ message only has To: nanog@lists.nanog.org and should be delivered once. If so, nothing is wrong the list and it was my fault for not checking the CC header.
I'm also seeing most but not all list messages with To: NANOG From: NANOG. To see who actually sent the message I have to check the message source as it's saved in X-MailFrom. Is this the new expected behaviour after the server upgrade?
This is expected based on configuration. If the list admins want the traffic to stay on the list, as a primary, which I recommend, then yes. It should send this way. The other way to configure mailman is to make the “to” the actual sender. The problem with that is, everyone on the list has to reply all. Otherwise, all responses go back to just the sender on reply.
I didn't say anything illegal. I have been hoping to reach people who believe right of speech and rights to broadcast ideas. You could simply disregard if you disagree. Or say your ideas politely. You are not in position (supermoderator) to tell moderators "do something" so Please; be polite! Give Respect to be able to get it back. Mr. Leber cried here about lack of RPKI and spam filter , before. Now measures are available. So I have every right to answer in same channel... So he cannot advertise his own company as giving back to community, while they do not (anymore!)... 3.03.2025 16:55 tarihinde Christopher Hawker yazdı:
It's not the first time OP has sent emails to the list or CC'ed the list on these emails that are IMO irrelevant, not to mention the fact that a large portion of what they've said has been disproven (see their previous email regarding the global IX with discounted peering and transit services). Can the list moderators do anything here?
Hurricane Electric, like any other business, are entitled to run their network in any way they see fit. If their customers aren't happy with how they do operate their network, they can look for another transit provider that does meet their requirements. There are plenty of them out there.
Regards, Christopher Hawker
You could simply disregard if you disagree. Or say your ideas politely. You are not in position (supermoderator) to tell moderators "do something"
This list is community moderated. We all are in a position to ask the NANOG staff moderator to do something when someone repeatedly violates the list rules. People are trying to be nice about it before resorting to that step. HE made a business decision about the services they do (and do not) provide. Anyone is of course free to talk to them directly to work out other arrangements. Your request to them is perfectly fine, there's just no need to CC this mailing list with it. On Mon, Mar 3, 2025 at 9:57 AM Volkan SALiH via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
I didn't say anything illegal. I have been hoping to reach people who believe right of speech and rights to broadcast ideas.
You could simply disregard if you disagree. Or say your ideas politely. You are not in position (supermoderator) to tell moderators "do something"
so Please; be polite! Give Respect to be able to get it back.
Mr. Leber cried here about lack of RPKI and spam filter , before. Now measures are available. So I have every right to answer in same channel...
So he cannot advertise his own company as giving back to community, while they do not (anymore!)...
It's not the first time OP has sent emails to the list or CC'ed the list on these emails that are IMO irrelevant, not to mention the fact that a large portion of what they've said has been disproven (see their previous email regarding the global IX with discounted peering and transit services). Can the list moderators do anything here?
Hurricane Electric, like any other business, are entitled to run their network in any way they see fit. If their customers aren't happy with how
3.03.2025 16:55 tarihinde Christopher Hawker yazdı: they do operate their network, they can look for another transit provider that does meet their requirements. There are plenty of them out there.
Regards, Christopher Hawker
_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/EQGMIRRV...
On Mon, Mar 3, 2025 at 2:57 PM Volkan SALiH via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
I didn't say anything illegal. I have been hoping to reach people who believe right of speech and rights to broadcast ideas.
You could simply disregard if you disagree. Or say your ideas politely. You are not in position (supermoderator) to tell moderators "do something"
so Please; be polite! Give Respect to be able to get it back.
I respectfully note that IMO demanding free services in the name of "rights of speech and rights to broadcast ideas" is at best overzealous idealism ignoring the realities operating a commercial IP network. A less charitable interpretation is "crazy". You have all the rights to speech and promulgating ideas as you can manage to arrange, but you have no right to demand others provide you the means gratis.
Mr. Leber cried here about lack of RPKI and spam filter , before. Now measures are available. So I have every right to answer in same channel...
So he cannot advertise his own company as giving back to community, while they do not (anymore!)...
From my perspective as a longtime gratis customer of HE IPv6 tunnels in the US, he.net is still giving back to the community and I continue to hold them in high regard as a result. I've had multiple IPv4-only ISPs in two US states over the last quarter-century while volunteering in maintenance of widely-used open-source network software that needs to work on IPv4-only, IPv6-only and dual-stack networks. If I didn't have IPv6 connectivity thanks to Hurricane Electric, I'd probably resort to cloud VMs for IPv6 testing which would cause me to spend more time managing the infrastructure and less time improving software. Your attempts to strongarm he.net to revive a generous gratis service which was having a negative impact on their paying customers seem unlikely to succeed from my perspective, and a waste of time for around 12,000 NANOG subscribers you feel entitled to involve in your quest. Count me among those who would support action to limit such abuse of the forum. Feel free to disrespect me, Dave Hart
Josh this crazy guy is talking about remote v6 BGP tunnels which HE discontinued due to abuse, has nothing to do with BGP peering for transit, he doesn't charge fees and probably never will. On Mon, Mar 3, 2025, 5:46 AM Josh Luthman via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
Attention to Reinstate Feeless BGP Sessions with HE. It's in the subject.
On Sun, Mar 2, 2025 at 5:03 PM Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:
I’m not sure what you are attempting to gain by CCing this list on messages like this, but please stop.
On Sun, Mar 2, 2025 at 13:16 Volkan SALiH <volkan.salih.06@gmail.com> wrote:
Mike Leber CEO, Hurricane Electric 760 Mission Court Fremont, CA 94539 United States
Subject: Request to Reinstate Feeless BGP Sessions with Enhanced Security Measures
Dear Mr. Leber, and interested NANOG members;
I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to respectfully request the reinstatement of feeless BGP sessions by Hurricane Electric, considering the latest advancements in routing security and spam prevention.
Recent developments in Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) validation have significantly enhanced the security of internet routing, effectively mitigating the risk of man-in-the-middle attacks. RPKI ensures that only legitimate Autonomous Systems (AS) can announce specific IP prefixes, thereby increasing trust and reliability in BGP sessions.
Additionally, to address concerns related to email abuse, it is now feasible to implement filtering on mail server ports (such as 25, 465, and 587) for feeless BGP sessions. By applying such restrictions, potential spam-related issues can be proactively managed while maintaining the accessibility and robustness of the service.
The restoration of feeless BGP sessions, with these enhanced security measures in place, would provide substantial benefits to the global internet community by fostering network expansion, enhancing resilience, and ensuring a more secure routing environment.
I sincerely appreciate the invaluable services that Hurricane Electric provides and trust that you will consider this request in light of the latest security improvements. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I look forward to your response.
*Best regards,* VOLKAN SALİH ANTAKYA/HATAY/TURKIYE +90 540 415 5555 +90 540 489 9999
_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/PEJN7R2X...
_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/N32G7Y7O... _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/JUS5TRIN...
I see, that's not how it reads to me. Cogent is known to tack on BGP fees - $50/mo? - and my favorite one was when the contract didn't have it but they added it after installation. On Mon, Mar 3, 2025 at 1:42 PM TJ Trout <tj@pcguys.us> wrote:
Josh this crazy guy is talking about remote v6 BGP tunnels which HE discontinued due to abuse, has nothing to do with BGP peering for transit, he doesn't charge fees and probably never will.
On Mon, Mar 3, 2025, 5:46 AM Josh Luthman via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
Attention to Reinstate Feeless BGP Sessions with HE. It's in the subject.
On Sun, Mar 2, 2025 at 5:03 PM Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:
I’m not sure what you are attempting to gain by CCing this list on messages like this, but please stop.
On Sun, Mar 2, 2025 at 13:16 Volkan SALiH <volkan.salih.06@gmail.com> wrote:
Mike Leber CEO, Hurricane Electric 760 Mission Court Fremont, CA 94539 United States
Subject: Request to Reinstate Feeless BGP Sessions with Enhanced Security Measures
Dear Mr. Leber, and interested NANOG members;
I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to respectfully request the reinstatement of feeless BGP sessions by Hurricane Electric, considering the latest advancements in routing security and spam prevention.
Recent developments in Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) validation have significantly enhanced the security of internet routing, effectively mitigating the risk of man-in-the-middle attacks. RPKI ensures that only legitimate Autonomous Systems (AS) can announce specific IP prefixes, thereby increasing trust and reliability in BGP sessions.
Additionally, to address concerns related to email abuse, it is now feasible to implement filtering on mail server ports (such as 25, 465, and 587) for feeless BGP sessions. By applying such restrictions, potential spam-related issues can be proactively managed while maintaining the accessibility and robustness of the service.
The restoration of feeless BGP sessions, with these enhanced security measures in place, would provide substantial benefits to the global internet community by fostering network expansion, enhancing resilience, and ensuring a more secure routing environment.
I sincerely appreciate the invaluable services that Hurricane Electric provides and trust that you will consider this request in light of the latest security improvements. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I look forward to your response.
*Best regards,* VOLKAN SALİH ANTAKYA/HATAY/TURKIYE +90 540 415 5555 +90 540 489 9999
_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/PEJN7R2X...
_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/N32G7Y7O... _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/JUS5TRIN...
Totally agree, I'm willing to bet because of Cogent's bad behavior HE will never follow that trend. You might need to look at the previous post, he has a grievance with HE not giving remote v6 bgp tunnels away anymore, they were for early v6 testing but ended up getting abused so HE discontinued them. On Mon, Mar 3, 2025, 11:07 AM Josh Luthman <josh@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
I see, that's not how it reads to me.
Cogent is known to tack on BGP fees - $50/mo? - and my favorite one was when the contract didn't have it but they added it after installation.
On Mon, Mar 3, 2025 at 1:42 PM TJ Trout <tj@pcguys.us> wrote:
Josh this crazy guy is talking about remote v6 BGP tunnels which HE discontinued due to abuse, has nothing to do with BGP peering for transit, he doesn't charge fees and probably never will.
On Mon, Mar 3, 2025, 5:46 AM Josh Luthman via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
Attention to Reinstate Feeless BGP Sessions with HE. It's in the subject.
On Sun, Mar 2, 2025 at 5:03 PM Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:
I’m not sure what you are attempting to gain by CCing this list on messages like this, but please stop.
On Sun, Mar 2, 2025 at 13:16 Volkan SALiH <volkan.salih.06@gmail.com> wrote:
Mike Leber CEO, Hurricane Electric 760 Mission Court <https://www.google.com/maps/search/760+Mission+Court+%0D%0A+Fremont,+CA+94539+%0D%0A+United+States?entry=gmail&source=g>
Fremont, CA 94539 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/760+Mission+Court+%0D%0A+Fremont,+CA+94539+%0D%0A+United+States?entry=gmail&source=g>
United States <https://www.google.com/maps/search/760+Mission+Court+%0D%0A+Fremont,+CA+94539+%0D%0A+United+States?entry=gmail&source=g>
Subject: Request to Reinstate Feeless BGP Sessions with Enhanced Security Measures
Dear Mr. Leber, and interested NANOG members;
I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to respectfully
request
the reinstatement of feeless BGP sessions by Hurricane Electric, considering the latest advancements in routing security and spam prevention.
Recent developments in Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) validation have significantly enhanced the security of internet routing, effectively mitigating the risk of man-in-the-middle attacks. RPKI ensures that only legitimate Autonomous Systems (AS) can announce specific IP prefixes, thereby increasing trust and reliability in BGP sessions.
Additionally, to address concerns related to email abuse, it is now feasible to implement filtering on mail server ports (such as 25, 465, and 587) for feeless BGP sessions. By applying such restrictions, potential spam-related issues can be proactively managed while maintaining the accessibility and robustness of the service.
The restoration of feeless BGP sessions, with these enhanced security measures in place, would provide substantial benefits to the global internet community by fostering network expansion, enhancing resilience, and ensuring a more secure routing environment.
I sincerely appreciate the invaluable services that Hurricane Electric provides and trust that you will consider this request in light of
latest security improvements. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I look forward to your response.
*Best regards,* VOLKAN SALİH ANTAKYA/HATAY/TURKIYE +90 540 415 5555 +90 540 489 9999
_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/PEJN7R2X...
_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/N32G7Y7O... _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/JUS5TRIN...
On Sun, Mar 2, 2025 at 9:58 AM Volkan SALiH <volkan.salih.06@gmail.com> wrote:
*Subject:* Proposal for HENETIX: A Global IXP with High-Discounted Peering and Transit Services
*Dear Mr. Mike Leber, and interested NANOG members *
Ooh, I think that means me! (interested NANOG member, that is--I am not now, nor have I ever been Mike Leber)
I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to you regarding the recent pricing structure adjustment for BGP tunnelbroker services, which were previously offered as a free (feeless) solution. Given the increasing demand for cost-effective and scalable interconnectivity solutions, I would like to propose the establishment of *HENETIX*, a global Internet Exchange Point (IXP) designed to facilitate high-discounted peering and transit services across a worldwide network.
Odd; when I go to tunnelbroker.net, I don't see any mention of a fee increase mentioned. But let's just put that part aside for a moment...
The Concept of HENETIX
HENETIX would operate as a global IXP, providing Layer 2 transport services without additional per-port or per-transport costs, allowing participants to exchange traffic with remote peers efficiently. Unlike traditional IXPs that impose substantial fees for remote peering or rely on third-party transport providers, HENETIX would integrate transport services within a unified pricing model. This approach would align with industry trends favoring cost efficiency, network expansion, and improved global routing performance.
"unified pricing model" -- by which I would assume you mean "I want to pay the same price to have my bits carried through MPLS/SR/EVPN/LatestL2MagicProtocol tunnels to anywhere on the planet as I would if I handed them to you as IP packets across an ordinary transit port". In other words, "I would like you to do a great deal of work, add complexity to your network and thus increase the fragility of the overall system, without earning any additional revenue to offset those negatives." Supporting Global Connectivity: Comparable Industry Examples
Several networks and IXPs around the world have adopted similar models to reduce costs and improve accessibility. Some notable examples include:
* *PacketFabric* and *Megaport*: Both platforms offer global Layer 2 connectivity with a simplified pricing model that integrates transport within the overall service, enabling customers to reach multiple regions without complex fee structures. * *Equinix Fabric*: Provides global interconnection across multiple markets with predictable pricing, reducing the barriers for enterprises and ISPs to participate in global exchanges. * *DE-CIX, AMS-IX, and LINX*: While these IXPs operate within traditional frameworks, they have introduced remote peering models that enable global reach with relatively lower costs compared to traditional carrier-based transport.
As you point out, there's already other players doing this; what you don't mention is that none of those players use a "unified pricing model" "without additional per-port or per-transport costs". Instead, all of the existing players that provide an L2 connectivity service do so at a higher cost than simple traditional IP transit, because they all recognize that carrying traffic through tunnels brings with it additional work and complexity that needs to be paid for somehow. To put it in perspective, looking at the first company you mentioned, currently packetfabric's pricing documentation ( https://docs.packetfabric.com/billing/services/ports/) mentions that their 1Gbps port price is $250/month. Doing a quick google search for "he.net transit port cost", the first result is the sponsored link from he.net that says "10 Gbps IP Transit $550/month | 40 Gbps IP Transit $2000/month" So, doing the math, 1Gbps for $250 versus 10Gbps for $550 means the competition is successfully charging 500% more for tunnelling traffic at layer 2 than the comparable Layer 3 transit port would cost. What you're proposing is that he.net should offer that same tunneled L2 connectivity at $550 for a 10Gb port, undercutting the competition by 80% while increasing the amount of work they need to do. Legal and Regulatory Considerations
The need for affordable interconnection services is not only a market demand but also a recognized regulatory priority in many regions. Organizations such as the *FCC (Federal Communications Commission, USA)* and the *European Commission* have emphasized the importance of neutral and cost-effective peering points to foster competition and improve internet resilience. Additionally, policies encouraging open interconnection are being promoted by various regulatory bodies to prevent monopolistic pricing practices in the transit market.
But nowhere in the world are regulatory agencies saying that you cannot charge more money for a service that requires increased complexity. Inherently, peering points are recognized to be single-location fabrics; hence the "point" in the name "peering point". Nobody is advocating for an increase in the number of "peering clouds" for the simple reason that they don't really help the internet overall. The only recognized benefit to converting IP packets into tunneled frames/cells/magicJuju to carry them around the planet where they are then extracted back out into their native IP packet format in order to be handed off to someone else is because you want some illusion of data privacy and address separation and isolation. If you're simply tossing the L3 packets back out into the wide and wooly internet afterwards, going through the extra work of layer-2-izing them first gained you nothing beyond some extra clock cycles spent in hardware at each end. Which is largely why no regulatory body is putting forth any mandates or language about requiring increased numbers of peering clouds; they really don't make much sense to implement.
Benefits of HENETIX
A HENETIX platform would provide significant advantages to both large-scale and emerging network operators:
I notice "he.net" is notably absent from that short list of entities that would purportedly benefit from this proposed platform...
1. *Cost Reduction*: A unified membership model would eliminate high transport fees, making global interconnection more affordable.
Right--so, customers would pay less, which would reduce the revenue potential for HE. Got it.
2. *Enhanced Network Performance*: By reducing dependency on Tier-1 transit providers, participating networks would achieve better latency, redundancy, and overall performance.
No. Just...no. Nowhere has it been demonstrated that getting a layer 3 packet from point A to point B takes less time if you convert it to layer 2 first, then transport it, then convert it back to layer 3 at the far end, versus simply carrying it as layer 3 all the way along. Encapsulating packets does not somehow increase the speed of light through fiber, nor does it materially decrease the time spent transiting silicon as it moves through intervening devices (cue someone popping up to talk about destination port lookup times for short labels versus IP addresses on line cards). Your packets will not get to the far end materially faster just because you spent time encapsulating and decapsulating them at each end.
3. *Simplified Peering*: A single interconnection framework would allow participants to seamlessly peer with networks worldwide without dealing with individual transport providers.
Right--so, it's simpler for the customer, but way more complex for HE. And as noted earlier in your proposal, you're not willing to pay any additional amount to cover the costs of that increased complexity that he.net would need to incorporate into their network to do this.
4. *Increased Market Accessibility*: Smaller ISPs, data centers, and cloud providers would be able to join a global interconnection fabric without financial constraints.
But they would only do so by being able to shift their costs onto he.net, without being willing to compensate he.net for taking on those costs.
5. *Scalability*: As internet traffic demands continue to grow, a streamlined interconnection model would ensure scalability without prohibitive infrastructure investments.
This is flat-out wrong. Scaling an L3-to-L2 encapsulation system takes more hardware, not less. Sure, it would allow you, the customer to scale up "without prohibitive infrastructure investments"; but that would be true only because you wanted your provider to bear the cost of those infrastructure investments without being willing to shoulder some of the costs of those investments.
Proposal and Next Steps
Given HE.NET's extensive network infrastructure and existing peering relationships, establishing HENETIX as a global IXP would be a strategic extension of your current services. By leveraging your existing assets and expertise, this initiative could position HE.NET as a leader in cost-effective global interconnection solutions.
I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss this proposal further and explore potential strategies for implementation. Please let me know a convenient time for a meeting or call to delve deeper into this concept.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your thoughts on this matter.
To sum up (paraphrasing, of course): "I would like you to embrace a more complicated and less reliable model for carrying IP traffic around the planet that will increase your costs, but I would like for you to do so without charging me any additional money to do so." I would like to wrap this up by pointing out that he.net already provides layer 2 transport as an option: https://he.net/layer2/ You won't get it for the same price as your IP transit port, but you can already build your own layer 2 links to remote peering locations across their network. So, you can go ahead and build HENETIX yourself today, (though I might recommend choosing a different name for it), no need to wait for Mike to finish facepalming first. Sincerely, Matt "interested NANOG member", not a hurricane electric employee
This is sorta reminding me of various people explaining to Jim Fleming that ipv9 is a bad idea. --srs ________________________________ From: Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com> Sent: Monday, March 3, 2025 4:11 AM To: North American Network Operators Group <nanog@lists.nanog.org> Cc: nanog@nanog.org <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: [NANOG]Re: Proposal for HENETIX: A Global IXP with High-Discounted Peering and Transit Services On Sun, Mar 2, 2025 at 9:58 AM Volkan SALiH <volkan.salih.06@gmail.com> wrote:
*Subject:* Proposal for HENETIX: A Global IXP with High-Discounted Peering and Transit Services
*Dear Mr. Mike Leber, and interested NANOG members *
Ooh, I think that means me! (interested NANOG member, that is--I am not now, nor have I ever been Mike Leber)
participants (13)
-
andrewasciutto＠gmail.com -
Christopher Hawker -
Dave Hart -
Deepak Jain -
Joel Esler -
Josh Luthman -
Matthew Petach -
nanog＠immibis.com -
Randy Bush -
Suresh Ramasubramanian -
TJ Trout -
Tom Beecher -
Volkan SALiH