Re: if you make the peace today i will call mr.obama
piss of so what? what can u do? you all bunch of fucking morons do something about putin why dont you give nuclear to UA? if you dont say stop, you can not say stop (later) 21.08.2022 05:46 tarihinde Jeremy Chequer yazdı: If you have beef with Cognet or HE why not just take it up with them instead of involving the whole list in your spam every few days? You rehashed a thread that hadn't seen any activity in 9 years and now just keep spamming everyone trying to get your point across. Yes, it is annoying that Cognet and HE don't peer with each other. You're not the only one who doesn't like it and Cognet has previously cut off other peers as well based on their internal policies. If you are a Cognet or HE customer, take it up with your Account Manager and if they aren't willing to do anything than talk with your wallet and take the business elsewhere if it is such a big issue for you. Spamming the list isn't going to result in any change, it is just going to piss people off. Neither company is going to care about one person complaining about it on a mailing list when both are bringing on new customers daily. Re your trolling comment, if I was to hazard a guess and I am not a moderator so not this is nothing but a guess, I'd say you have crossed the line now and am hoping the moderators take action soon so that the 10s of thousands who get these emails don't need to keep putting up with your spam. Cheers Jeremy Chequer Chief Operating Officer Resolver Group | Check Networks Resolver Group is a Division of Check Technology Group Please consider the environment before printing this email. *From:* NANOG on behalf of VOLKAN KIRIK *Sent:* Sunday, August 21, 2022 12:28:04 PM *To:* dschaef...@cogentco.com ; Mike Leber *Cc:* nanog list *Subject:* if you make the peace today i will call mr.obama [External Sender] Be cautious of any links or attachments within this email as it has come from an External Sender. if you make the peace today i will call mr.obama i mean the biden. and shut down your operations both white house should call me immediately. ps. turkish translator is required. however i may correct him/her in case of bad translation isnt this list moderated or.. trolling allowed!??
Re: if you make the peace today i will call mr.obama
maybe they know that i am the really real god. i have metatron at my back. lol 21.08.2022 05:46 tarihinde Jeremy Chequer yazdı: If you have beef with Cognet or HE why not just take it up with them instead of involving the whole list in your spam every few days? You rehashed a thread that hadn't seen any activity in 9 years and now just keep spamming everyone trying to get your point across. Yes, it is annoying that Cognet and HE don't peer with each other. You're not the only one who doesn't like it and Cognet has previously cut off other peers as well based on their internal policies. If you are a Cognet or HE customer, take it up with your Account Manager and if they aren't willing to do anything than talk with your wallet and take the business elsewhere if it is such a big issue for you. Spamming the list isn't going to result in any change, it is just going to piss people off. Neither company is going to care about one person complaining about it on a mailing list when both are bringing on new customers daily. Re your trolling comment, if I was to hazard a guess and I am not a moderator so not this is nothing but a guess, I'd say you have crossed the line now and am hoping the moderators take action soon so that the 10s of thousands who get these emails don't need to keep putting up with your spam. Cheers Jeremy Chequer Chief Operating Officer Resolver Group | Check Networks Resolver Group is a Division of Check Technology Group Please consider the environment before printing this email. *From:* NANOG on behalf of VOLKAN KIRIK *Sent:* Sunday, August 21, 2022 12:28:04 PM *To:* dschaef...@cogentco.com ; Mike Leber *Cc:* nanog list *Subject:* if you make the peace today i will call mr.obama [External Sender] Be cautious of any links or attachments within this email as it has come from an External Sender. if you make the peace today i will call mr.obama i mean the biden. and shut down your operations both white house should call me immediately. ps. turkish translator is required. however i may correct him/her in case of bad translation isnt this list moderated or.. trolling allowed!??
Re: (off list) Re: cogent and henet not peering
we have both anal and oral service. thats why.
i also fuck women. dont care as long as its a hole
21.08.2022 05:19 tarihinde Mike Lyon yazdı:
That doesn’t seem very offlist…
On Aug 20, 2022, at 19:12, VOLKAN KIRIK wrote:
you can always be at my service.
as i am the god.
working 7/24 at no markup.
+905520094078
god's hotline. IM always responded. calls maybe.
i mean the allah.
21.08.2022 05:06 tarihinde jkinne...@yahoo.ca yazdı:
I am still all riled up. I can't get over him sending that message.
I'm glad I want to check out his linkedin profile.
Happy I could be of service to you. :)
On Saturday, August 20, 2022, 07:00:15 p.m. PDT, VOLKAN KIRIK
wrote:
if you are happy i am happy.
i dont care negative people much.
21.08.2022 04:53 tarihinde jkinne...@yahoo.ca
<mailto:jkinne...@yahoo.ca> yazdı:
Hey Volkan,
I just emailed the list moderator to let them know it was optional to
post my message to the list. As long as you know some twit with
three years experience running around calling himself executive
director just harassed you, I'm happy.
Have a great day!
Jason
On Saturday, August 20, 2022, 06:50:05 p.m. PDT, VOLKAN KIRIK
<mailto:volki...@gmail.com> wrote:
lol
21.08.2022 04:28 tarihinde jkinne...@yahoo.ca
<mailto:jkinne...@yahoo.ca> yazdı:
Good thing they have someone with a dish washing skill-set to clean
up their inbox's for them.
On Saturday, August 20, 2022, 06:01:34 p.m. PDT, Peter Potvin via
NANOG <mailto:nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
Hey all,
Removing Cogent personnel and peering departments from this thread
as I'm sure they don't appreciate the nonsense coming from this list.
Regards,
Peter Potvin | Executive Director
--
*Accuris Technologies Ltd.*
11-300 Earl Grey Drive, Suite #124, Kanata, Ontario K2T1C1 Canada
Email: peter.pot...@accuristechnologies.ca
<mailto:peter.pot...@accuristechnologies.ca>
Office: +1 (877) 352-6105
Network Operations Centre: +1 (877) 321-1662
On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 8:51 PM VOLKAN KIRIK <mailto:volki...@gmail.com>> wrote:
yea whatever..
its upto mike leber and dave schaeffer to decide. they can
either accept or reject the solution
I have been always believing content creator/provider should pay
expenses (at least excess traffic).
because they put their server in some datacenter and reach all
of the internet.. their backbone expenses are less..
i can understand that todays datacenters including he.net
<http://he.net> are interested to participate in 200-300 IXPs.
well that acceptable. it should be considered too
so i would offer both companies 3 cent per mbps for excess traffic.
ok bye
21.08.2022 03:25 tarihinde Forrest Christian (List Account) yazdı:
But that traffic was likely requested by and for the benefit of
the person the traffic is being sent to.
I've always found the argument that the quantity of traffic is
the indicator of who should pay to be questionable.
If I'm an end user on an eyeball user and request a big
download or streaming from a provider, isn't it me that caused
that traffic to flow? One could argue that I am the one that
needs to pay.
On the other hand, one could argue that it's the provider of
the content that I requested that needs to pay, since it's
their content which is being distributed.
When you get to peering between two providers it's almost
impossible to decide who needs to pay. As I mentioned above,
passing that traffic is actually to the benefit of both providers.
About the only settlement I could see is where one of the
providers is bearing most of the transport costs. For example
a regional provider only peering at one exchange point might
expect some settlement costs with a big international provider
that is effectively carrying their traffic both directions
around the globe. But the quantity of that type of traffic is
likely minimal in the grand scheme of things. Even then one
might argue that connectivity to the small provider is still
valuable to the customers of the large provider.
On Fri, Aug 19, 2022, 9:32 AM VOLKAN KIRIK mailto:volki...@gmail.com>> wrote:
the more uploading side pays each month for the excess amount.
as content networks are supposed to pay expenses.
what do you think?
19.08.2022 18:28 tarihinde Mike Hammett yazdı:
The problem them becomes *who* pays? When do the tables
turn as to who pays?
The alpha gets paid and the beta does the paying?
The network with more POPs gets paid?
The network with more downstream ASes gets paid?
Is it the same for IPv4 as it is for IPv6?
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il
[correction fluid] if you make the peace today i will call mr.obama
if you *dont* make the peace today i will call mr.obama i mean the biden. and shut down your operations both white house should call me immediately. ps. turkish translator is required. however i may correct him/her in case of bad translation isnt this list moderated or.. trolling allowed!?? why correction fluid: i am confused after i couldnt shutdown both nsps so i decided to shutdown both
if you make the peace today i will call mr.obama
if you make the peace today i will call mr.obama i mean the biden. and shut down your operations both white house should call me immediately. ps. turkish translator is required. however i may correct him/her in case of bad translation isnt this list moderated or.. trolling allowed!??
Re: (off list) Re: cogent and henet not peering
you can always be at my service.
as i am the god.
working 7/24 at no markup.
+905520094078
god's hotline. IM always responded. calls maybe.
i mean the allah.
21.08.2022 05:06 tarihinde jkinne...@yahoo.ca yazdı:
I am still all riled up. I can't get over him sending that message.
I'm glad I want to check out his linkedin profile.
Happy I could be of service to you. :)
On Saturday, August 20, 2022, 07:00:15 p.m. PDT, VOLKAN KIRIK
wrote:
if you are happy i am happy.
i dont care negative people much.
21.08.2022 04:53 tarihinde jkinne...@yahoo.ca
<mailto:jkinne...@yahoo.ca> yazdı:
Hey Volkan,
I just emailed the list moderator to let them know it was optional to
post my message to the list. As long as you know some twit with
three years experience running around calling himself executive
director just harassed you, I'm happy.
Have a great day!
Jason
On Saturday, August 20, 2022, 06:50:05 p.m. PDT, VOLKAN KIRIK
<mailto:volki...@gmail.com> wrote:
lol
21.08.2022 04:28 tarihinde jkinne...@yahoo.ca
<mailto:jkinne...@yahoo.ca> yazdı:
Good thing they have someone with a dish washing skill-set to clean up
their inbox's for them.
On Saturday, August 20, 2022, 06:01:34 p.m. PDT, Peter Potvin via
NANOG <mailto:nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
Hey all,
Removing Cogent personnel and peering departments from this thread as
I'm sure they don't appreciate the nonsense coming from this list.
Regards,
Peter Potvin | Executive Director
--
*Accuris Technologies Ltd.*
11-300 Earl Grey Drive, Suite #124, Kanata, Ontario K2T1C1 Canada
Email: peter.pot...@accuristechnologies.ca
<mailto:peter.pot...@accuristechnologies.ca>
Office: +1 (877) 352-6105
Network Operations Centre: +1 (877) 321-1662
On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 8:51 PM VOLKAN KIRIK <mailto:volki...@gmail.com>> wrote:
yea whatever..
its upto mike leber and dave schaeffer to decide. they can either
accept or reject the solution
I have been always believing content creator/provider should pay
expenses (at least excess traffic).
because they put their server in some datacenter and reach all of
the internet.. their backbone expenses are less..
i can understand that todays datacenters including he.net
<http://he.net> are interested to participate in 200-300 IXPs.
well that acceptable. it should be considered too
so i would offer both companies 3 cent per mbps for excess traffic.
ok bye
21.08.2022 03:25 tarihinde Forrest Christian (List Account) yazdı:
But that traffic was likely requested by and for the benefit of
the person the traffic is being sent to.
I've always found the argument that the quantity of traffic is
the indicator of who should pay to be questionable.
If I'm an end user on an eyeball user and request a big download
or streaming from a provider, isn't it me that caused that
traffic to flow? One could argue that I am the one that needs to
pay.
On the other hand, one could argue that it's the provider of the
content that I requested that needs to pay, since it's their
content which is being distributed.
When you get to peering between two providers it's almost
impossible to decide who needs to pay. As I mentioned above,
passing that traffic is actually to the benefit of both providers.
About the only settlement I could see is where one of the
providers is bearing most of the transport costs. For example a
regional provider only peering at one exchange point might expect
some settlement costs with a big international provider that is
effectively carrying their traffic both directions around the
globe. But the quantity of that type of traffic is likely
minimal in the grand scheme of things. Even then one might
argue that connectivity to the small provider is still valuable
to the customers of the large provider.
On Fri, Aug 19, 2022, 9:32 AM VOLKAN KIRIK mailto:volki...@gmail.com>> wrote:
the more uploading side pays each month for the excess amount.
as content networks are supposed to pay expenses.
what do you think?
19.08.2022 18:28 tarihinde Mike Hammett yazdı:
The problem them becomes *who* pays? When do the tables turn
as to who pays?
The alpha gets paid and the beta does the paying?
The network with more POPs gets paid?
The network with more downstream ASes gets paid?
Is it the same for IPv4 as it is for IPv6?
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL><https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb><https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions><https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest
Re: cogent and henet not peering
lol 21.08.2022 04:28 tarihinde jkinne...@yahoo.ca yazdı: Good thing they have someone with a dish washing skill-set to clean up their inbox's for them. On Saturday, August 20, 2022, 06:01:34 p.m. PDT, Peter Potvin via NANOG wrote: Hey all, Removing Cogent personnel and peering departments from this thread as I'm sure they don't appreciate the nonsense coming from this list. Regards, Peter Potvin | Executive Director -- *Accuris Technologies Ltd.* 11-300 Earl Grey Drive, Suite #124, Kanata, Ontario K2T1C1 Canada Email: peter.pot...@accuristechnologies.ca Office: +1 (877) 352-6105 Network Operations Centre: +1 (877) 321-1662 On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 8:51 PM VOLKAN KIRIK wrote: yea whatever.. its upto mike leber and dave schaeffer to decide. they can either accept or reject the solution I have been always believing content creator/provider should pay expenses (at least excess traffic). because they put their server in some datacenter and reach all of the internet.. their backbone expenses are less.. i can understand that todays datacenters including he.net <http://he.net> are interested to participate in 200-300 IXPs. well that acceptable. it should be considered too so i would offer both companies 3 cent per mbps for excess traffic. ok bye 21.08.2022 03:25 tarihinde Forrest Christian (List Account) yazdı: But that traffic was likely requested by and for the benefit of the person the traffic is being sent to. I've always found the argument that the quantity of traffic is the indicator of who should pay to be questionable. If I'm an end user on an eyeball user and request a big download or streaming from a provider, isn't it me that caused that traffic to flow? One could argue that I am the one that needs to pay. On the other hand, one could argue that it's the provider of the content that I requested that needs to pay, since it's their content which is being distributed. When you get to peering between two providers it's almost impossible to decide who needs to pay. As I mentioned above, passing that traffic is actually to the benefit of both providers. About the only settlement I could see is where one of the providers is bearing most of the transport costs. For example a regional provider only peering at one exchange point might expect some settlement costs with a big international provider that is effectively carrying their traffic both directions around the globe. But the quantity of that type of traffic is likely minimal in the grand scheme of things. Even then one might argue that connectivity to the small provider is still valuable to the customers of the large provider. On Fri, Aug 19, 2022, 9:32 AM VOLKAN KIRIK wrote: the more uploading side pays each month for the excess amount. as content networks are supposed to pay expenses. what do you think? 19.08.2022 18:28 tarihinde Mike Hammett yazdı: The problem them becomes *who* pays? When do the tables turn as to who pays? The alpha gets paid and the beta does the paying? The network with more POPs gets paid? The network with more downstream ASes gets paid? Is it the same for IPv4 as it is for IPv6? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL><https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb><https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions><https://twitter.com/ICSIL> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix><https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange><https://twitter.com/mdwestix> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp><https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> ---- *From: *"VOLKAN KIRIK" <mailto:volki...@gmail.com> *To: *"Rubens Kuhl" <mailto:rube...@gmail.com> *Cc: *nanog@nanog.org, dschaef...@cogentco.com, peer...@cogentco.com *Sent: *Friday, August 19, 2022 10:22:00 AM *Subject: *Re: cogent and henet not peering this is 50/50 situation. nobody has to peer for free. but everyone can. lets just say above 1:1 ratio he.net <http://he.net> pays their own ip transit price to cogent for paid peering excess amount and both sides monitor traffic we can solve this issue by becoming middlemen worldwide
Re: cogent and henet not peering
yea whatever..
its upto mike leber and dave schaeffer to decide. they can either
accept or reject the solution
I have been always believing content creator/provider should pay
expenses (at least excess traffic).
because they put their server in some datacenter and reach all of the
internet.. their backbone expenses are less..
i can understand that todays datacenters including he.net are interested
to participate in 200-300 IXPs.
well that acceptable. it should be considered too
so i would offer both companies 3 cent per mbps for excess traffic.
ok bye
21.08.2022 03:25 tarihinde Forrest Christian (List Account) yazdı:
But that traffic was likely requested by and for the benefit of the
person the traffic is being sent to.
I've always found the argument that the quantity of traffic is the
indicator of who should pay to be questionable.
If I'm an end user on an eyeball user and request a big download or
streaming from a provider, isn't it me that caused that traffic to
flow? One could argue that I am the one that needs to pay.
On the other hand, one could argue that it's the provider of the
content that I requested that needs to pay, since it's their content
which is being distributed.
When you get to peering between two providers it's almost impossible
to decide who needs to pay. As I mentioned above, passing that
traffic is actually to the benefit of both providers.
About the only settlement I could see is where one of the providers is
bearing most of the transport costs. For example a regional provider
only peering at one exchange point might expect some settlement costs
with a big international provider that is effectively carrying their
traffic both directions around the globe. But the quantity of that
type of traffic is likely minimal in the grand scheme of things.
Even then one might argue that connectivity to the small provider is
still valuable to the customers of the large provider.
On Fri, Aug 19, 2022, 9:32 AM VOLKAN KIRIK wrote:
the more uploading side pays each month for the excess amount.
as content networks are supposed to pay expenses.
what do you think?
19.08.2022 18:28 tarihinde Mike Hammett yazdı:
The problem them becomes *who* pays? When do the tables turn as
to who pays?
The alpha gets paid and the beta does the paying?
The network with more POPs gets paid?
The network with more downstream ASes gets paid?
Is it the same for IPv4 as it is for IPv6?
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL><https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb><https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions><https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix><https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange><https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp><https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
--------
*From: *"VOLKAN KIRIK"
<mailto:volki...@gmail.com>
*To: *"Rubens Kuhl" <mailto:rube...@gmail.com>
*Cc: *nanog@nanog.org, dschaef...@cogentco.com, peer...@cogentco.com
*Sent: *Friday, August 19, 2022 10:22:00 AM
*Subject: *Re: cogent and henet not peering
this is 50/50 situation. nobody has to peer for free.
but everyone can.
lets just say above 1:1 ratio he.net <http://he.net> pays their
own ip transit price to cogent for paid peering excess amount and
both sides monitor traffic
we can solve this issue by becoming middlemen worldwide...
both operators are cheap and they could all compete in quality.
level3 pays comcast reasonable (cheap) price (under NDA maybe?).
why wouldnt mleber?
but to make it fair, as he.net <http://he.net> becomes ww tier-1
operator day-by-day, lets just limit pricing to excess amount of
traffic
thanks for reading
would appreciate your support
19.08.2022 18:09 tarihinde Rubens Kuhl yazdı:
OTOH, knowing that Cogent loves splitting the global Internet is one
good reason to not contract their services.
I think they sell traffic to their private Intranet. Which is huge,
but doesn't encompass the whole Internet.
Rubens
On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 12:04 PM VOLKAN KIRIK
<mailto:volki...@gmail.com> wrote:
lets just say cogent gives 400GE in each pop they have in common
withhe.net <http://he.net> for free.
BUT they will rate-limithe.net <http://he.net> links to previous
month's 95th percentile upload or download (whi
Re: cogent and henet not peering
for example he.net upstream = 300 gbps average downstream = 200 gbps average (monthly, 95th) then they should pay 6 cent per megabit of 100 gbps. would be fair enough.. lets see if they are really giving back to the community. why did they stop bgp tunnels? lots of RD networks moved to CH free upstream USA's loss. He.net's loss. they are nothing at my eyes. but whatever if they want to bake cake again, they need to convince themselves to pay something. cogent is eyeball heavy (mostly inbound.) while he.net is content heavy. i assume POP count and anything else can be safely ignored here... we need to K.I.S.S. 19.08.2022 18:32 tarihinde VOLKAN KIRIK yazdı: the more uploading side pays each month for the excess amount. as content networks are supposed to pay expenses. what do you think? 19.08.2022 18:28 tarihinde Mike Hammett yazdı: The problem them becomes *who* pays? When do the tables turn as to who pays? The alpha gets paid and the beta does the paying? The network with more POPs gets paid? The network with more downstream ASes gets paid? Is it the same for IPv4 as it is for IPv6? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL><https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb><https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions><https://twitter.com/ICSIL> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix><https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange><https://twitter.com/mdwestix> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp><https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> -------- *From: *"VOLKAN KIRIK" *To: *"Rubens Kuhl" *Cc: *nanog@nanog.org, dschaef...@cogentco.com, peer...@cogentco.com *Sent: *Friday, August 19, 2022 10:22:00 AM *Subject: *Re: cogent and henet not peering this is 50/50 situation. nobody has to peer for free. but everyone can. lets just say above 1:1 ratio he.net pays their own ip transit price to cogent for paid peering excess amount and both sides monitor traffic we can solve this issue by becoming middlemen worldwide... both operators are cheap and they could all compete in quality. level3 pays comcast reasonable (cheap) price (under NDA maybe?). why wouldnt mleber? but to make it fair, as he.net becomes ww tier-1 operator day-by-day, lets just limit pricing to excess amount of traffic thanks for reading would appreciate your support 19.08.2022 18:09 tarihinde Rubens Kuhl yazdı: OTOH, knowing that Cogent loves splitting the global Internet is one good reason to not contract their services. I think they sell traffic to their private Intranet. Which is huge, but doesn't encompass the whole Internet. Rubens On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 12:04 PM VOLKAN KIRIK wrote: lets just say cogent gives 400GE in each pop they have in common with he.net for free. BUT they will rate-limit he.net links to previous month's 95th percentile upload or download (which is minimum) rate (each month) to make ratio 1:1... to make downstream and upstream traffics fair... okay? fine? come on people, segmentation is bad.
Re: cogent and henet not peering
the more uploading side pays each month for the excess amount. as content networks are supposed to pay expenses. what do you think? 19.08.2022 18:28 tarihinde Mike Hammett yazdı: The problem them becomes *who* pays? When do the tables turn as to who pays? The alpha gets paid and the beta does the paying? The network with more POPs gets paid? The network with more downstream ASes gets paid? Is it the same for IPv4 as it is for IPv6? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL><https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb><https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions><https://twitter.com/ICSIL> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix><https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange><https://twitter.com/mdwestix> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp><https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> -------- *From: *"VOLKAN KIRIK" *To: *"Rubens Kuhl" *Cc: *nanog@nanog.org, dschaef...@cogentco.com, peer...@cogentco.com *Sent: *Friday, August 19, 2022 10:22:00 AM *Subject: *Re: cogent and henet not peering this is 50/50 situation. nobody has to peer for free. but everyone can. lets just say above 1:1 ratio he.net pays their own ip transit price to cogent for paid peering excess amount and both sides monitor traffic we can solve this issue by becoming middlemen worldwide... both operators are cheap and they could all compete in quality. level3 pays comcast reasonable (cheap) price (under NDA maybe?). why wouldnt mleber? but to make it fair, as he.net becomes ww tier-1 operator day-by-day, lets just limit pricing to excess amount of traffic thanks for reading would appreciate your support 19.08.2022 18:09 tarihinde Rubens Kuhl yazdı: OTOH, knowing that Cogent loves splitting the global Internet is one good reason to not contract their services. I think they sell traffic to their private Intranet. Which is huge, but doesn't encompass the whole Internet. Rubens On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 12:04 PM VOLKAN KIRIK wrote: lets just say cogent gives 400GE in each pop they have in common with he.net for free. BUT they will rate-limit he.net links to previous month's 95th percentile upload or download (which is minimum) rate (each month) to make ratio 1:1... to make downstream and upstream traffics fair... okay? fine? come on people, segmentation is bad.
Re: cogent and henet not peering
this is 50/50 situation. nobody has to peer for free. but everyone can. lets just say above 1:1 ratio he.net pays their own ip transit price to cogent for paid peering excess amount and both sides monitor traffic we can solve this issue by becoming middlemen worldwide... both operators are cheap and they could all compete in quality. level3 pays comcast reasonable (cheap) price (under NDA maybe?). why wouldnt mleber? but to make it fair, as he.net becomes ww tier-1 operator day-by-day, lets just limit pricing to excess amount of traffic thanks for reading would appreciate your support 19.08.2022 18:09 tarihinde Rubens Kuhl yazdı: OTOH, knowing that Cogent loves splitting the global Internet is one good reason to not contract their services. I think they sell traffic to their private Intranet. Which is huge, but doesn't encompass the whole Internet. Rubens On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 12:04 PM VOLKAN KIRIK wrote: lets just say cogent gives 400GE in each pop they have in common with he.net for free. BUT they will rate-limit he.net links to previous month's 95th percentile upload or download (which is minimum) rate (each month) to make ratio 1:1... to make downstream and upstream traffics fair... okay? fine? come on people, segmentation is bad.
Re: cogent and henet not peering
alternatively you can do this every 5 minutes.. you could write a script to get 5 minute average for both downstream and upstream and then equalize by rate-limiting with 5 minute delay. it would be nearly instant and absolutely fair for both sides. 19.08.2022 18:03 tarihinde VOLKAN KIRIK yazdı: lets just say cogent gives 400GE in each pop they have in common with he.net for free. *BUT* they will rate-limit he.net links *to* previous month's 95th percentile upload or download (which is minimum) rate (*each month*) to make ratio 1:1... to make downstream and upstream traffics fair... okay? fine? come on people, segmentation is bad.
cogent and henet not peering
lets just say cogent gives 400GE in each pop they have in common with he.net for free. *BUT* they will rate-limit he.net links *to* previous month's 95th percentile upload or download (which is minimum) rate (*each month*) to make ratio 1:1... to make downstream and upstream traffics fair... okay? fine? come on people, segmentation is bad.
Re: Read: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/hurricane not peering
the lesson of (/for) the he.net kolayın tuzağına düşme do not fall into trap of the easy way. now tier1 league of them will take like forever for never
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/hurricane not peering
the companies are here to trade, charge prices for their services so why blame cogent for doing what they supposed to be doing? why did hurricane stop BGP tunnel service? and started asking for 500 usd/month for peering? expense of BGP servers? or did they realize ipv6 prefixes does not cost MRC, so their network peers are not serious business. why did Google start charging for cloud gigabytes? if he.net opens free BGP tunnel service back; and also announce full transit routes on IXPs, thats just zero (payback)... if they provide free ip transit to everyone; I would think that cogent should provide free network access to them... if google doesnt charge for traffic in cloud services, then they will be largest in my eyes. if cogent asks for a price, then they have to pay (to become tier1)... simple as that. or they could stay as tier-2 as long as they want. thats called free as in freedom. not as in price. *doesnt level3 pay comcast money for paid-peering?* building eyeball network, enabling fiber connectivity in buildings has much more meaning to me... so honestly i am fine with segmented ipv6 internet. i would just not prefer he.net in my IP transit blend, as i do not have to respect crying beggars and i could choose telia+cogent. he.net guys are just charging you money for dumping your traffic in IX Points, that you can do yourself, be eyeball or content network.. btw, losts of useless prefixes... think an asn has 1000 ipv6 prefixes but less than 1 ge traffic, while there are networks exceeding 10ge with just one prefix. ipv6 nat is spreading. just like ipv4 nat. could you analyze traffic amount of ASNs? no. then dont fuckin call them largest or i will kick your monkey ass. i am the god! 11.08.2022 17:01 tarihinde August Yang yazdı: Think twice before asking the largest global IPv6 network as measured by prefixes announced to pay Cogent for peering. Also what’s with Telia here? Best regards August Yang On 2022-08-11 09:46, VOLKAN KIRIK wrote: hello nobody has to peer with some operator for free. they are simply trading internet services. they do not have to believe in FREE (as in price) internet connectivity.. if they peered you, you would decrease the price of the products even more and more... ask cogentco (as174) for paid peering. they will give you nice paid peering or ip transit offer that you can use for both ipv4 and ipv6. for example i would assume they would be OK charging he.net (as6939) 5 usd cent per megabit. you need to understand that you are never going to become tier1 without support from as174. they are currently cheapest and they are okay with dual homing too. think like united nations security council. you must think twice; are you gaining any profit by segmenting world-wide internet? or are you loosing prospective single-homing customers because you lack connectivity to as174 clients? we must think big. asking for a money is OKay while begging for FREE service is not... operating NOC and backbone has some expenses that henet wouldnt understand with their rented links. cogentco bear much more expenses than henet i am not here to insult henet but i honestly think that they are contemptible... just like google's peering decision makers. sir! if you have become big content/eyeball operator, doesnt mean that every operator in the industry have to respect your tier-1 policy and give you their services for free. thats the thing henet and google couldnt understand. think like UNSC and you will understand even USA can not do anything they want in the world, as RU has voting right, too. TL;DR; instead of crying here and begging for free service. send real representatives that could negotiate the money you would pay. bye
RE: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering
hello nobody has to peer with some operator for free. they are simply trading internet services. they do not have to believe in FREE (as in price) internet connectivity.. if they peered you, you would decrease the price of the products even more and more... ask cogentco (as174) for paid peering. they will give you nice paid peering or ip transit offer that you can use for both ipv4 and ipv6. for example i would assume they would be OK charging he.net (as6939) 5 usd cent per megabit. you need to understand that you are never going to become tier1 without support from as174. they are currently cheapest and they are okay with dual homing too. think like united nations security council. you must think twice; are you gaining any profit by segmenting world-wide internet? or are you loosing prospective single-homing customers because you lack connectivity to as174 clients? we must think big. asking for a money is OKay while begging for FREE service is not... operating NOC and backbone has some expenses that henet wouldnt understand with their rented links. cogentco bear much more expenses than henet i am not here to insult henet but i honestly think that they are contemptible... just like google's peering decision makers. sir! if you have become big content/eyeball operator, doesnt mean that every operator in the industry have to respect your tier-1 policy and give you their services for free. thats the thing henet and google couldnt understand. think like UNSC and you will understand even USA can not do anything they want in the world, as RU has voting right, too. TL;DR; instead of crying here and begging for free service. send real representatives that could negotiate the money you would pay. bye
