William, > Don't get me wrong. You can cure this fraud without going to extremes. > An open peering policy doesn't require you to buy hardware for the > other guy's convenience. Let him reimburse you or procure the hardware > you spec out if he wants to peer. Nor do you have to extend your > network to a location convenient for the other guy. Pick neutral > locations where you're willing to peer and let the other guy build to > them or pay you to build from there to him. Nor does an open peering > policy require you to give the other guy a free ride on your > international backbone: you can swap packets for just the regions of > your network in which he's willing to establish a connection. But not > ratios and traffic minimums -- those are not egalitarian, they're > designed only to exclude the powerless. > > Taken in this context, the Cogent/HE IPv6 peering spat is very simple: > Cogent is -the- bad actor. 100%.
I'm curious: How do you know that Cogent didn't offer to peer under terms such as the ones you mention, but that those were refused by HE? Tore
