On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 7:40 AM, Jon Lewis <jle...@lewis.org> wrote: > On Thu, 10 Mar 2016, William Herrin 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. > > That's one way of looking at it. > > However, which of your transits don't bill for bits exchanged with other > customers of theirs...and how are they or you accounting for that traffic?
Hi Jon, As you know, there is a technology limitation in how routing works which says that for any given block of addresses you can, absent extraordinary measures, have a peering relationship or a transit relationship but not both. If both parties choose to have a transit relationship, that excludes a peering relationship for the relevant blocks of addresses. And that's OK when _both sides_ choose it. In related news, no ethical conundrum demands defiance of the law of gravity. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
