On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Dennis Bohn <bohn@adelphi.edu> wrote:
On Mar 16, 2016 10:06 AM, "Christopher Morrow" <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Dennis Bohn <bohn@adelphi.edu> wrote:
So if someone (say an eyeball network) was putting out a RFQ for a gig say of upstream cxn and wanted to spec full reachability to the full V6 net, what would the wording for that spec look like? Would that get $provider's attention?
"We would like transit services to the full ipv4 and ipv6 addressable space, we would like our prefixes to be advertised to the whole of the above space as well."
then you'd by one (some) connection(s) from 'best option #1' and one(some) connection(s) to 'next best option'.
I'm not sure 'rfq' is required here is it? ....
I was thinking RFQ with specific requirements might get cogent attention more than a call. Sure they wouldn't change policy for me, but if they were unable to meet quote requirements repeatedly it might have some effect... or am I dreaming?
my guess is the same as Owen's ... 'your rfq don't mean squat'. honestly it's not like people don't ask their cogent sales folk for this sort of thing, it's just not cogent's (clearly, given how long the HE/Cogent thing along has persisted) way of doing things. Sometimes your belief system just isn't theirs.
and potentially what knobs
the providers expose to you for bgp TE functionality?
Good thought to include that. Tnx. D.