From: Daniel Golding (no email)
Date: Thu Apr 14 2005 - 15:51:44 EDT
This is a matter of human nature, I suppose. Everyone is terribly pleasant
when they hear what they want. The true test is what happens when folk hear
the "wrong" answer.
I've depeered and I've been depeered. I've seen folks on the receiving end
of bad peering news handle it with consummate professionalism. I've also
seen folks act like spoiled children, forgetting the fundamental rule of
peering:
Peering is a business relationship. Peering is about meeting the mutual
business needs of two networks. Emotionalism , "hurt feelings", and actions
that violate the bounds of trust and the normal bounds of professionalism
have no place in internetwork peering.
Depeering is always a gamble and, as such, is to be generally avoided as
unnecessary risk. Given that, folks need to resist their urge to put black
hats on networks who decide that certain peering relationships have outlived
their usefulness. The true picture is always more complex than the spaghetti
western.
If enough folks are actually interested, I'd be happy to do a talk at an
upcoming NANOG on depeering (methods, etiquette, likely outcomes, necessary
pre-action analysis). This might be good for a future peering track.
- Dan
On 4/14/05 1:38 PM, "Steve Gibbard" <> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 11:28:00AM -0400, wrote:
>
>>> in depeering. However, dealing with Cogent on peering matters is
>>> incredibly unpleasant. I can understand networks and peering
>>> coordinators feeling that it just isn't worth it.
>
> Just for the record, I've dealt with Cogent's peering people on behalf of
> a few networks over the last two years, and in my experience they've been
> extremely pleasant to work with.
>
> -Steve
|
|
|