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?
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 > 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" > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jimmy Hess [mailto:mysi...@gmail.com] > Sent: June 09, 2011 7:56 AM > To: Saku Ytti > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: Cogent & HE > > On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 3:39 AM, Saku Ytti <s...@ytti.fi> wrote: >> On (2011-06-09 00:55 -0700), Owen DeLong wrote: > >> I look forward for IPv4 to go away, as in future I can have full free >> connectivity through HE to every other shop who all have full free >> connectivity to HE. Something went terribly wrong in IPv4 land, where >> we're being unfairly forced to pay to access other networks through > them. > > 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". > > It's obvious HE wishes to get positioning as > Tier1 on the IPv6 network. Once the amount of IPv6 traffic increases, > $$ required for HE to provide transit between free peers will increase, > and at some amount of traffic free transit will no longer be > sustainable, due to additional network upgrades, ports, etc, required to > carry additional transit. > > So they either lose massive $$, 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. > > > 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 > > 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 > > (and ironically -- preventing themselves from being classified Tier1, > due to refusing to peer with HE). > > 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. > > -- > -JH > > >