nanog mailing list archives
Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun
From: Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl () gmail com>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 15:58:05 +0100
On 16 March 2016 at 14:56, 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?
But is that even possible to deliver? I might have some address space that I only advertised with no export to a single peer - does that count? If some third party decides to stop advertising a prefix to $provider are they then in breach of contract with no way to resolve it? If so, I want to sign up and then I will pull some insignificant prefix, just so I can demand $5 million USD in ransom money. Google decided they have some prefixes they don't want to advertise to Cogent. They did offer a reasonable way for Cogent to resolve that issue, but what if Google werent reasonable? Do you still demand that Cogent cave in to anything? I see no easy way here other than let the market decide. If Cogent sucks they will get less traffic and less customers. Or maybe someone finds them useful at the pricepoint they offer. Regards, Baldur
Current thread:
- Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun, (continued)
- Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun Dennis Bohn (Mar 16)
- Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun Christopher Morrow (Mar 16)
- Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun Dennis Bohn (Mar 16)
- Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun Owen DeLong (Mar 16)
- Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun Christopher Morrow (Mar 16)
- Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun Mark Tinka (Mar 16)
- Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun Owen DeLong (Mar 16)
- Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun Mark Tinka (Mar 16)
- Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun Owen DeLong (Mar 16)
- Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun Mark Tinka (Mar 16)
- Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun Baldur Norddahl (Mar 16)
- Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun William Herrin (Mar 16)
- Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun Owen DeLong (Mar 13)