[141525] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Cogent & HE
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Wed Jun 8 18:39:54 2011
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: <20110608200505.GD18302@gerbil.cluepon.net>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 18:39:02 -0400
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jun 8, 2011, at 4:05 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 07:48:42PM +0000, Brielle Bruns wrote:
>> Has been going on for a long while now. HE even made a cake for=20
>> Cogent (IIRC), to no avail.
>>=20
>> But, this is not surprising. A lot of public/major peering issues=20
>> with v4 over the past few years has been cogent vs. someone else.
>=20
> When two networks are not able to reach each other like this, it =
usually=20
> requires the active willing participation of both parties to allow the=20=
> situation to continue. In this case, HE is doing *PRECISELY* the same=20=
> thing that Cogent is doing.
You are incorrect.
Yes, both refuse to buy transit, yes. But HE is able, willing, and even =
begging to peer; Cogent is not. These are not "the same thing".
Also, Cogent does not peer with Google either last time I checked. =
There may be others for all I know. (I don't buy transit from Cogent.)
These are not the only two networks on the v6 Internet who are =
bifurcated. There are some in Europe I know of (e.g. Telecom Italia =
refuses to buy v6 transit and refuses to peer with some networks), and =
probably others. The v6 'Net is _not_ ready for prime time, and won't =
be until there is a financial incentive to stop the stupidity & ego =
stroking.
The Internet is a business. Vote with your wallet. I prefer to buy =
from people who do things that are in MY best interest. Giving money to =
Cogent will not put pressure on them peer with HE & Google & everyone =
else - just the opposite.
On the flip side, HE is an open peer, even to their own customers, and =
_gives away_ free v6 transit. Taking their free transit & complaining =
that they do not buy capacity to Cogent seems more than silly. Plus, =
they are doing that I think is in my best interest as a customer - open =
peering. Trying to make them the bad guy here seems counter intuitive.
--=20
TTFN,
patrick
> They're refusing to purchase transit, and=20
> making the decision to intentionally not carry a full table or have=20
> global reachability, in the hopes that it will strengthen their=20
> strategic position for peering in the long term (i.e. they both want =
to=20
> be an "IPv6 Tier 1").
>=20
> I'm not making a judgement call about the rightness or wrongness of =
the=20
> strategy (and after all, it clearly hasn't been THAT big of an issue=20=
> considering that it has been this way for MANY months), but to attempt=20=
> to "blame" one party for this issue is the height of absurdity. PR=20
> stunts and cake baking not withstanding, they're both equally =
complicit.
>=20
> --=20
> Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> =
http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
> GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 =
2CBC)
>=20
