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/>