On Mar 11, 2016, at 06:16 , William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
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
Not really. If you have both, then there’s no easy way to guarantee that you get paid for every piece of transit (though relatively simple localpref tactics will actually make it likely that you also get paid for many bits of peering).
relationship, that excludes a peering relationship for the relevant blocks of addresses. And that's OK when _both sides_ choose it.
Your premise is flawed.
In related news, no ethical conundrum demands defiance of the law of gravity.
True, but gravity is real. Your law of peering vs. transit above is purely artificial and fails utterly if you don’t accept that an approximation of which bits fall into which category is “close enough” for billing purposes. I’m not making any value judgments on whether accepting that idea is good or bad. I know that there are networks that act in various ways on both sides of this idea. However, equating it to “the law of gravity” is rather silly given that it is 100% mutable if we take the accounting out of the picture. No amount of monetary policy change can counteract gravity. Owen