This is a matter of human nature, I suppose. Everyone is terribly pleasant when they hear what they want. The true test is what happens when folk hear the "wrong" answer. I've depeered and I've been depeered. I've seen folks on the receiving end of bad peering news handle it with consummate professionalism. I've also seen folks act like spoiled children, forgetting the fundamental rule of peering: Peering is a business relationship. Peering is about meeting the mutual business needs of two networks. Emotionalism , "hurt feelings", and actions that violate the bounds of trust and the normal bounds of professionalism have no place in internetwork peering. Depeering is always a gamble and, as such, is to be generally avoided as unnecessary risk. Given that, folks need to resist their urge to put black hats on networks who decide that certain peering relationships have outlived their usefulness. The true picture is always more complex than the spaghetti western. If enough folks are actually interested, I'd be happy to do a talk at an upcoming NANOG on depeering (methods, etiquette, likely outcomes, necessary pre-action analysis). This might be good for a future peering track. - Dan On 4/14/05 1:38 PM, "Steve Gibbard" <scg@gibbard.org> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 11:28:00AM -0400, dgolding@gmu.edu wrote:
in depeering. However, dealing with Cogent on peering matters is incredibly unpleasant. I can understand networks and peering coordinators feeling that it just isn't worth it.
Just for the record, I've dealt with Cogent's peering people on behalf of a few networks over the last two years, and in my experience they've been extremely pleasant to work with.
-Steve