[141589] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Cogent & HE
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joel Jaeggli)
Thu Jun 9 11:28:53 2011
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
In-Reply-To: <13175F96BDC3B34AB1425BAE905B3CE50547C11E@ltiserver.lti.local>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 08:27:53 -0700
To: Dennis Burgess <dmburgess@linktechs.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jun 9, 2011, at 6:09 AM, Dennis Burgess wrote:
> Does Cogent participate in the meetings/shows like the one coming up
> next week ? Would that not be a good place for NANOGers to voice =
their
> opinion? =20
generally telling another party how to run their business in specific is =
considered poor taste...
e.g. I dont buy transit from them and I don't much care if they choose =
to carry full routes or not. If I were a customer I imagine I'd be =
rather unhappy with the quality of their ipv6 transit product, but I'm =
not.
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer=20
> Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services
> Office: 314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net
> LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training - Author of "Learn RouterOS"
>=20
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jimmy Hess [mailto:mysidia@gmail.com]=20
> Sent: June 09, 2011 7:56 AM
> To: Saku Ytti
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Cogent & HE
>=20
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 3:39 AM, Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi> wrote:
>> On (2011-06-09 00:55 -0700), Owen DeLong wrote:
>=20
>> I look forward for IPv4 to go away, as in future I can have full free=20=
>> connectivity through HE to every other shop who all have full free=20
>> connectivity to HE. Something went terribly wrong in IPv4 land, where=20=
>> we're being unfairly forced to pay to access other networks through
> them.
>=20
> The existence of free IPv6 transit from one peer to another is clearly =
a
> temporary situation; when IPv6 traffic picks up, expect to see the =
end
> of free transit, or a new rule like "free transit only to our paying
> customers' networks", or "Pay an extra port fee, get first XX megs
> transit for free".
>=20
> It's obvious HE wishes to get positioning as
> Tier1 on the IPv6 network. Once the amount of IPv6 traffic increases,
> $$ required for HE to provide transit between free peers will =
increase,
> and at some amount of traffic free transit will no longer be
> sustainable, due to additional network upgrades, ports, etc, required =
to
> carry additional transit.
>=20
> So they either lose massive $$, become a non-profit organization, and
> get sufficient donations from peers to fund upgrades, or at some =
point,
> limit the amount of (or type) of transit that is free, or stop adding
> peers.
>=20
>=20
> An assumption is that there will be such a thing as a Tier1 on the =
IPv6
> network.
> Perhaps, the fact there are ISPs larger than all the others and the IP
> protocol suite tends to form a hierarchical structure logically, BUT
>=20
> There exists a possibility that no IPv6 network will be able to =
achieve
> transit-free status through peering; evidently, it just takes one =
large
> arrogant network operator to demand everyone else buy transit, in =
order
> to prevent any Tier1s from completely becoming Tier1
>=20
> (and ironically -- preventing themselves from being classified Tier1,
> due to refusing to peer with HE).
>=20
> Unless you know... the operational definition of Tier1 is relaxed
> greatly to allow for partial connectivity; reaching 50% of the =
networks
> without transit does not make one Tier1.
>=20
> --
> -JH
>=20
>=20
>=20
