Re: AW: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Dave Bell <me () geordish org>]

On 10 March 2016 at 15:55, William Herrin <bill () herrin us> 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.
>
> Google, by contrast, makes no demand that Cogent pay them even though
> you are not paying Google for service. They offer "open peering," a
> free interconnect via many neutral data centers.

I don't get this. Google are basically a hosting provider. If I set up
my own website, I would expect to have to pay transit for it. If I ran
a hosting business I would expect to pay transit. Why are google
different?

Its Google's decision to decide not to pay for transit for v6.
Considering how open they are to peering, and how large their network
it, it probably makes a lot of sense. If you need to connect to a
transit provider, you can probably peer with google at the same
location.

Cogent is in the business of trying to provide transit. I understand
there are probably good business cases where you may want to set up an
SFI with someone like google, but at the end of the day that's their
choice.

I get the arguments that Cogent are supposed to be supplying a full
view of the DFZ, but if Joe's Hosting Company refuses to pay anyone
for transit, surely it is their own fault that their reachability is
compromised?

Regards,
Dave