My point still stands as well. Volkan and myself choose to post to make awareness of this issue.
> If you didn't ask about their fee schedule during a feasibility study prior to obtaining a service from them yet obtained the service from them regardless that's on you to deal with, not your chosen upstream. What does it matter if they are the only option within 100 miles? >there are still plenty of transit providers No, there isn't. I literally just got an email from HE minutes ago and their closest point is an 80 mile drive. As I stated in my previous post, "We have had to build fiber about 20 route miles ($1MM) to reach our second provider. Our first provider was 4 route miles." Not everyone has the luxury of spending a million bucks to get a second fiber option. Competition is not a luxury everyone has. Bringing awareness to (IMO bad) practices like BGP fees is a good thing for network operators. On Mon, Mar 3, 2025 at 9:22 AM Christopher Hawker <[email protected]> wrote: > My point still stands - how you get to them in what one could consider an > “off-net location” is for you to consider. You made a business decision to > build out your network location in the area you did, just like HE made the > decision to charge fees for services they charge for. If you didn't ask > about their fee schedule during a feasibility study prior to obtaining a > service from them yet obtained the service from them regardless that's on > you to deal with, not your chosen upstream. > > And regardless of whether you have a DC next door with every T1 provider > or 50 miles away, there are still plenty of transit providers. You just > need to work out how to get to who you want to connect to. > > Regards, > Christopher Hawker > > Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef> > ------------------------------ > *From:* Josh Luthman <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Tuesday, 4 March 2025 1:02:21 am > *To:* Christopher Hawker <[email protected]> > *Cc:* North American Network Operators Group <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [NANOG] Re: [NANOG]Re: Request to Reinstate Feeless BGP > Sessions with Enhanced Security Measures > > >There are plenty of them out there. > > As a rural network operator, that is simply false. We have had to build > fiber about 20 route miles ($1MM) to reach our second provider. Our first > provider was 4 route miles. > > Required BGP fees are a disease and messages like this produce awareness > for those of us that don't have a "plenty" of options in a single building. > > On Mon, Mar 3, 2025 at 8:56 AM Christopher Hawker <[email protected]> > wrote: > > It's not the first time OP has sent emails to the list or CC'ed the list > on these emails that are IMO irrelevant, not to mention the fact that a > large portion of what they've said has been disproven (see their previous > email regarding the global IX with discounted peering and transit > services). Can the list moderators do anything here? > > Hurricane Electric, like any other business, are entitled to run their > network in any way they see fit. If their customers aren't happy with how > they do operate their network, they can look for another transit provider > that does meet their requirements. There are plenty of them out there. > > Regards, > Christopher Hawker > ------------------------------ > *From:* Josh Luthman via NANOG <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 4, 2025 12:35 AM > *To:* North American Network Operators Group <[email protected]> > *Cc:* [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Josh > Luthman <[email protected]> > *Subject:* [NANOG] Re: [NANOG]Re: Request to Reinstate Feeless BGP > Sessions with Enhanced Security Measures > > Attention to Reinstate Feeless BGP Sessions with HE. It's in the subject. > > On Sun, Mar 2, 2025 at 5:03 PM Tom Beecher <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I’m not sure what you are attempting to gain by CCing this list on > messages > > like this, but please stop. > > > > On Sun, Mar 2, 2025 at 13:16 Volkan SALiH <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Mike Leber > > > CEO, Hurricane Electric > > > 760 Mission Court > > > Fremont, CA 94539 > > > United States > > > > > > Subject: Request to Reinstate Feeless BGP Sessions with Enhanced > > > Security Measures > > > > > > Dear Mr. Leber, and interested NANOG members; > > > > > > I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to respectfully request > > > the reinstatement of feeless BGP sessions by Hurricane Electric, > > > considering the latest advancements in routing security and spam > > > prevention. > > > > > > Recent developments in Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) > > > validation have significantly enhanced the security of internet > routing, > > > effectively mitigating the risk of man-in-the-middle attacks. RPKI > > > ensures that only legitimate Autonomous Systems (AS) can announce > > > specific IP prefixes, thereby increasing trust and reliability in BGP > > > sessions. > > > > > > Additionally, to address concerns related to email abuse, it is now > > > feasible to implement filtering on mail server ports (such as 25, 465, > > > and 587) for feeless BGP sessions. By applying such restrictions, > > > potential spam-related issues can be proactively managed while > > > maintaining the accessibility and robustness of the service. > > > > > > The restoration of feeless BGP sessions, with these enhanced security > > > measures in place, would provide substantial benefits to the global > > > internet community by fostering network expansion, enhancing > resilience, > > > and ensuring a more secure routing environment. > > > > > > I sincerely appreciate the invaluable services that Hurricane Electric > > > provides and trust that you will consider this request in light of the > > > latest security improvements. Thank you for your time and attention to > > > this matter. I look forward to your response. > > > > > > *Best regards,* > > > VOLKAN SALİH > > > ANTAKYA/HATAY/TURKIYE > > > +90 540 415 5555 > > > +90 540 489 9999 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > NANOG mailing list > > > > > > > > > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/PEJN7R2XU7CBSPZ4INTXBKPMUC4JT3OV/ > > _______________________________________________ > > NANOG mailing list > > > > > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/N32G7Y7OYJWP2XJWYBU4KT6Y64CA7FPD/ > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/JUS5TRINN2IGNHLNJU2YZTUEOVY62XAQ/ > > _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/QFFETGNA5F7BTW4LPFEHR2SAHI2O52ZD/
