In my opinion you are all overlooking one issue here. Our customers are the
reason we exist and providing global connectivity to customers is important.
Happy customers are important. If anyone forced you to peer with us,
I would have to say it was your customer who called you up and requested
that his company be able to access our network. The fellow I talked to
at Exodus felt the way I do and believed that if one of his customers
needed something that he was going to do his best to make it happen.
Again, not to harp on this particular situation, I just want to express that
many of these providers with the really strict peering policies have
some very unhappy customers (I have talked to quite a few of them). They
are unhappy because they can't get to all the destinations they need to. I
think in the end the customers will vote by connecting elsewhere.


    The point was not who did what to whom. The point was bending policies due
    to certain circumstances and forced peering due to these.
    I do recall you having transit via geonet for a while however on the network in
    question. Same issue, on a much smaller scale, than AGIS/Digex situation.
    I agree with taking this offline, and discussing the "issue" rather than the
    particular situation between our networks.

I agree with you 100%. The ironic thing is that when a network adopts a
very strict peering policy, they are limiting their *OWN* connectivity to
something less than optimal. It's like refusing to play basebase unless
you are allowed to run bases in your 4 wheeler. Sure it looks impressive
to drive around the diamond, but the players on foot can maneuver so much
faster that your wheels work to your disadvantage.

My network has at least one path, sometimes more, to all Internet
destinations. If it did not, we would have some very unhappy customers.
When I seek peering, it's to improve connectivity not establish it. And
connectivity improves equally on both sides.

Best Regards,
Robert Laughlin