[141535] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Cogent & HE
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Wed Jun 8 20:42:47 2011
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: <20110608230517.GL18302@gerbil.cluepon.net>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 20:41:54 -0400
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jun 8, 2011, at 7:05 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 06:39:02PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>>=20
>> Yes, both refuse to buy transit, yes. But HE is able, willing, and=20=
>> even begging to peer; Cogent is not. These are not "the same thing".
>=20
> I'm ready, willing, and lets say for the purposes of this discussion=20=
> begging to peer with every Tier 1, but some of them aren't willing to=20=
> peer with me. Does that mean I should stop buying transit and blame =
them=20
> for my resulting lack of global reachability? If I could convince my=20=
> customers to accept that line of bullshit it would certainly reduce my=20=
> transit costs, but I have a sneaking suspicion they wouldn't. :)
Your statement and mine are not in contradiction. I did not say =
anywhere that HE was perfect, only that they are not the same thing. I =
stand by what I said. You care to argue the point?
Also, HE is _giving away_ v6 transit. You don't like it, stop paying =
your bill. :)
Put another way, you don't like how both are acting, then don't buy from =
either. Why not just peer with both. Oh, wait, that's right, you can't =
peer with Cogent, but HE is happy to bring up sessions for the cost of a =
single e-mail, and dump (their version of) full v6 routes to you.
Yeah, Richard, totally the same thing....
> Ultimately it is the responsibility of everyone who connects to the=20
> Internet to make sure they are, you know, actually connected to the=20
> Internet. Choosing not to do so and then throwing up your hands and=20
> saying "oh I can't help it, they won't peer with me" is not a valid=20
> excuse, at least not in my book or the book of anyone who pays me =
money=20
> to deliver their packets. And this isn't even a case of not being ABLE=20=
> to buy sufficient capacity via a transit path (ala Comcast), this is=20=
> just two networks who have mutually decided two remain partitioned =
from=20
> each other in the pursuit of long term strategic advantage. Ultimately=20=
> both parties share responsibility for this issue, and you can't escape=20=
> that just because you have a tube of icing and some spare time. :)
Things are a bit more complex than that.
You can't simply say "if someone won't peer with you, you must buy =
transit". Otherwise, Cogent would be the only tier one left, since they =
care about their customers less than anyone else. This is not good for =
me or the Internet, and I refuse to support it.
>> On the flip side, HE is an open peer, even to their own customers, =
and=20
>> _gives away_ free v6 transit. Taking their free transit & =
complaining=20
>> that they do not buy capacity to Cogent seems more than silly. Plus,=20=
>> they are doing that I think is in my best interest as a customer -=20
>> open peering. Trying to make them the bad guy here seems counter=20
>> intuitive.
>=20
> I know you're not naive enough to think that HE is giving away free =
IPv6=20
> transit purely out of the kindness of their heart. They're doing it to=20=
> bulk up their IPv6 customer base, so they can compete with larger=20
> networks like Cogent, and make a play for Tier 1-dom in exactly the =
same=20
> way that Cogent has done with IPv4. And more power to them for it, it=20=
> may well be a smart long term strategic move on their part, but with=20=
> every wannabe Tier 1 network comes partitioning and peering disputes, =
as=20
> they try to trade short term customer pain for long term advantages.
Of course. The question is not: "Is $COMPANY acting in $COMPANY's best =
interest?" The answer to that is: Duh.
The question is: "Which $COMPANY's best interests more closely align =
with mine?" If you have the slightest doubt here, you are highly =
confused.
> Sorry to all the HE guys, but trying to simultaniously complain about=20=
> your treatment at the hands of other networks and their peering =
disputes=20
> while emulating their actions is bullshit and you know it. :)
We disagree. See the first paragraph in this post, HE is not emulating =
Cogent, Telecom Italia, etc.
You are bitching about both HE & Cogent. If I were paying either for v6 =
transit, I would bitch too. But I am not paying HE - no one is! - and =
they _are_ doing things differently than Cogent. So why not support the =
one whose long term interests both best fit mine and the Internet's? =
(Plus, to be honest, I have a lot more faith in Mike & Martin to =
continue doing what's best for me & the Internet than Dave. And by "a =
lot more", I mean something on the order of "more than 50%" vs. "less =
than 0.01%".)
--=20
TTFN,
patrick
