Re: Cogent & HE
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 2:18 AM, Jimmy Hess wrote: > HE doesn't need to buy IPv6 transit, because they are in effect transit-free > (except to Cogent). It's not just a Cogent issue. They also chose not to buy from Level3 or buy those routes through a Level3 peer: >From HE's route-server: route-server> sh bgp ipv6 regexp _3356_ % No Results route-server> sh bgp ipv6 regexp _174_ % No Results - Andy
Re: Cogent & HE
On 2011-Jun-10 02:18, Jimmy Hess wrote: > On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 6:49 PM, Richard A Steenbergen > wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 06:26:01PM -0500, Jimmy Hess wrote: > > You seem to have missed it, so I will say again: IPv6 is not IPv4. First you seem to have missed the point where the Internet is since the day before yesterday the combination of IPv4+IPv6. You also seemed to have missed the part where Tier1 are supposed to provide quality native multi-path connectivity globally and not peering mostly in a tunneled fashion (oh MTU what you don't reveal) with one little router stashed at an unmanned IX. Especially that tunneled part requires IPv4 to actually be able to transmit those IPv6 packets, thus without the Tier1 status in IPv4 you really cannot claim Tier1 in IPv6 in that case. Also note that prefix count says nothing, first aggregate all the prefixes properly, ignoring ASNs which use prefixes out of a PA dump, then see how many are actually left. Of course as an extra and possibly way more important metric: check how many of those prefixes you would actually like to reach (that is where you have an interest of sending packets to/from). You might indeed be able to 'complete' your routes with it, but are those routes worth it calling something a Tier1? ;) Greets, Jeroen
Re: Cogent & HE
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 6:49 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 06:26:01PM -0500, Jimmy Hess wrote: You seem to have missed it, so I will say again: IPv6 is not IPv4. They are two different internetworks, with different participants -- many IPv4 networks have no IPv6 counterpart as of yet. Having any kind of IPv6 network is a new thing for Cogent; they opened shop, when, 2008, sometime? I'm pretty sure HE had an IPv6 network and a greater degree of connectivity, before you could get IPv6 from Cogent. Many Tier1 IPv4 networks had no IPv6 network for a long time; the first day an IPv4 Tier1 turns on IPv6 doesn't magically make them IPv6 Tier1 -- because the v6 network has a different topology, there are many 'holes' in the graph, where the new network's peering arrangements will be IPv4 only. An IPv4 Tier1 might actually need to buy transit to get connected to the IPv6 internet, if they are sufficiently late for the show. There is a chance IPv4 and IPv6 topologies will become more similar in the future, but for now that is not the case, and that is no reason to confuse the two networks, or speak as if they are one and the same. Cogent doesn't have a transit-free global IPv6 network view. > Cogent is (unfortunately, note I have no particular love for Cogent > here) a transit free network, who peers with every other Tier 1. HE is a No, Cogent has a transit free IPv4 network; Cogent peers with every other IPv4 Tier 1. It appears as if they are trying to use their IPv4 Tier1 status as a strategic piece, to attempt to get Tier1 status on the IPv6 network. That might work well with other Tier1s who are also behind in IPv6 deployment, and possibly apt to peer with Cogent. But that effort doesn't automatically make Cogent a Tier1 on the IPv6 network. We'll just have to wait and see about that, I think. > perfectly fine network, but they are not even CLOSE to a transit free > network. HE buys transit from multiple other networks, including You mean HE is not close to being a transit free IPv4 network. They have a very nearly transit-free IPv6 network. > There is absolutely NO requirement that there be a direct > interconnection between HE and Cogent. None, period, and if you think > otherwise you are vastly confused about routing on the Internet. Let me > say this again, there is NO requirement that HE buy transit from Cogent, > but there is a requirement that HE buy transit from *SOMEONE* if they > are not a transit free network. HE doesn't need to buy IPv6 transit, because they are in effect transit-free (except to Cogent). > HE has deliberately chosen NOT to use transit for their IPv6 routes, in > order to force people like Cogent to peer with them so they can become > an "IPv6 Tier 1", and thus you have a partition. These are the same -JH
Re: Cogent & HE
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 06:26:01PM -0500, Jimmy Hess wrote: > Er, Sorry... you are kind of siding with Cogent and claiming HE > responsible without any logically sound argument explicitly stated > that supports that position... You're confused, read again. :) > I would consider them both responsible for the partition, with Cogent > slightly more complicit, in that Cogent's expectation of selling HE > transit is slightly less reasonable than HE's expectation of Cogent > peering with HE. Cogent is (unfortunately, note I have no particular love for Cogent here) a transit free network, who peers with every other Tier 1. HE is a perfectly fine network, but they are not even CLOSE to a transit free network. HE buys transit from multiple other networks, including 3549/Global Crossing and 1299/Telia (both easily visible in the routing table), which they use to reach Cogent for IPv4. There is absolutely NO requirement that there be a direct interconnection between HE and Cogent. None, period, and if you think otherwise you are vastly confused about routing on the Internet. Let me say this again, there is NO requirement that HE buy transit from Cogent, but there is a requirement that HE buy transit from *SOMEONE* if they are not a transit free network. HE has deliberately chosen NOT to use transit for their IPv6 routes, in order to force people like Cogent to peer with them so they can become an "IPv6 Tier 1", and thus you have a partition. These are the same tactics and strategies used by every other network in pursuit of becoming a Tier 1, including Cogent, and everyone complained their ass off when Cogent caused partitioning several times during THEIR peering disputes on the road to their current transit free status. If your answer is "I like HE better than Cogent so I'm willing to overlook it", that's fine, but you're just making things up if you're trying to claim that they AREN'T causing this partition. -- Richard A Steenbergenhttp://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
Re: Cogent & HE
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 12:55:44AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: Er, Sorry... you are kind of siding with Cogent and claiming HE responsible without any logically sound argument explicitly stated that supports that position... I would consider them both responsible for the partition, with Cogent slightly more complicit, in that Cogent's expectation of selling HE transit is slightly less reasonable than HE's expectation of Cogent peering with HE. Perhaps Cogent is actually responsible, because Cogent has failed to ask HE to peer, and Cogent has not sought to buy transit from HE to correct the network partition. > HE wants to peer with Cogent, Cogent doesn't want to peer with HE, and > thus you have an impass and there will be no peering. HE has no problem > using transit to reach Cogent for IPv4 (I see HE reaching Cogent via Cogent wants HE to buy IPv6 transit with Cogent, HE doesn't want to buy IPv6 transit with Cogent, and thus you have an impass, and there will be no buying of transit. [References to IPv4 networks are irrelevent; the IPv4 internet is not like the IPv6 internet.] > 1299/Telia, and Cogent reaching HE via 3549/Global Crossing, both very > clearly HE transit providers and Cogent peers), but HE has chosen not to > use transit for the IPv6 traffic. Quite simply, HE feels that they are > entitled to peer with Cogent for the IPv6 traffic, and has deliberately Cogent has chosen not to use transit for the IPv6 traffic to HE. Quite simply, Cogent feels they are entitled to sell transit to HE for the IPv6 traffic, and has deliberately > chosen to create this partition to try and force the issue. These are > *PRECISELY* the same motivations and actions as EVERY OTHER NETWORK who has ever created a network partition in pursuit of selling transit that the other party doesn't want to buy, period. > Again, this isn't necessarily a bad thing if HE thinks it can work to Again, this isn't necessarily a bad thing if Cogent thinks it can work to > their long term advantage, but to try and claim that this is anything > else is completely disingenuous. I understand that you have a PR > position to take, and you may even have done a good job convincing the > weak minded who don't understand how peering works that HE is the weak minded who don't understand how peering works that Cogent is the > victim, but please don't try to feed a load of bullshit to the rest of > us. :) -- -JH
Re: Cogent & HE
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 07:06:29PM -0400, Brian Dickson wrote: > > So, long history short, there were in fact peering disputes that had > one side saying, "hey, we want to peer" and the other side saying "you > don't have enough traffic", or "your ratio is too imbalanced", or > "you're my customer - tough!". And some of those got resolved by the > ratios changing, or the traffic levels reaching sufficiently high. (I > can historically mention AS 6453.) How is that different from what I said? One side wants to peer, the other side says "no thanks". A list of reasons is nice, especially if they will actually grant peering after you meet those requirements (instead of just changing their requirements to deny you again :P), but immaterial to the point. In EVERY peering dispute there is one side who wants to peer, but that doesn't make this side any more noble or right, especially if they don't meet the requirements and are simply trying to force the peering through intentionally creating a partition then playing the propaganda game to blame the other side for it. Everyone complained when Cogent did it to others, why should it be any different when HE does it to Cogent? I'm sorry but I don't accept "because Cogent is giving away free IPv6 transit right now" as a valid reason, especially when it very clearly advances their goals of artificially inflating their customer base specifically so they CAN engage in these peering disputes. It's a perfectly valid tactic that has been used by the finest networks for years, but at least have the decency to admit it for what it is, that's all I'm saying. :) -- Richard A Steenbergenhttp://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
Re: Cogent & HE
On 06/09/2011 06:21 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 12:55:44AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: Respectfully, RAS, I disagree. I think there's a big difference between being utterly unwilling to resolve the situation by peering and merely refusing to purchase transit to a network that appears to offer little or no value to the purchaser or their customers. Owen, can you please name me one single instance in the history of the Internet where a peering dispute which lead to network partitioning did NOT involve one side saying "hey, we're willing to peer" and the other side saying "no thanks"? Being the one who wants to peer means absolutely NOTHING here, the real question is which side is causing the partitioning, and in this case the answer is very clearly HE. HE wants to peer with Cogent, Cogent doesn't want to peer with HE, and thus you have an impass and there will be no peering. HE has no problem using transit to reach Cogent for IPv4 (I see HE reaching Cogent via 1299/Telia, and Cogent reaching HE via 3549/Global Crossing, both very clearly HE transit providers and Cogent peers), but HE has chosen not to use transit for the IPv6 traffic. Quite simply, HE feels that they are entitled to peer with Cogent for the IPv6 traffic, and has deliberately chosen to create this partition to try and force the issue. These are *PRECISELY* the same motivations and actions as EVERY OTHER NETWORK who has ever created a network partition in pursuit of peering that the other party doesn't want to give them, period. Again, this isn't necessarily a bad thing if HE thinks it can work to their long term advantage, but to try and claim that this is anything else is completely disingenuous. I understand that you have a PR position to take, and you may even have done a good job convincing the weak minded who don't understand how peering works that HE is the victim, but please don't try to feed a load of bullshit to the rest of us. :) From reading everything you have said my impression is YOU either work for Cogent or have an axe to grind with HE. Otherwise I can see no reason for your obvious bias against HE. -- Stephen Clark *NetWolves* Sr. Software Engineer III Phone: 813-579-3200 Fax: 813-882-0209 Email: steve.cl...@netwolves.com http://www.netwolves.com
Re: Cogent & HE
RAS wrote: >On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 12:55:44AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >> Respectfully, RAS, I disagree. I think there's a big difference >> between being utterly unwilling to resolve the situation by peering >> and merely refusing to purchase transit to a network that appears to > offer little or no value to the purchaser or their customers. >Owen, can you please name me one single instance in the history of the >Internet where a peering dispute which lead to network partitioning did >NOT involve one side saying "hey, we're willing to peer" and the other >side saying "no thanks"? Being the one who wants to peer means >absolutely NOTHING here, the real question is which side is causing the >partitioning, and in this case the answer is very clearly HE. I don't know if Owen can, but I know I can. Back in the day, when there were many fewer Tier-1's but the number was growing, there were enough disputes over peering requests that there was a danger of things actually getting regulated (e.g. by the dreaded FCC). As part of one of the many mergers, the biggest player at that time (AS 701), made their peering requirements public, *and* honored those requirements. So, long history short, there were in fact peering disputes that had one side saying, "hey, we want to peer" and the other side saying "you don't have enough traffic", or "your ratio is too imbalanced", or "you're my customer - tough!". And some of those got resolved by the ratios changing, or the traffic levels reaching sufficiently high. (I can historically mention AS 6453.) Some of the other early players didn't play fair, and to my knowledge still don't. You have to know someone, or be named "Ren" to get peering with them. (Sorry, Ren. :-)) IMHO, what Cogent are effectively trying to do, is to extort "paid peering", masquerading as transit. Personally, I think the global traffic patterns, loss/latency/jitter, and general karma of the Internet would be improved, if those who currently peer with Cogent were to do evaluate the impact of de-peering them: - How many networks are *single*-homed behind Cogent? - Is anyone who *needs* Internet connectivity that unwise (to be single homed anywhere, let alone behind Cogent)? - If they *are* single-homed-to-Cogent, they aren't *your* customers. :-) - (This could be applied to both IPv6 *and* IPv4 - the logic is the same) Brinksmanship, like virtue or stupidity, is its own reward. Brian P.S. In the ancient game "go", there's a special rule on the two players playing alternate single-piece steals, that limits it to N times for very small N. The game becomes futile and pointless, beyond a certain number of repeated moves. Ditto for not peering.
Re: Cogent & HE
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 12:55:44AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: > > Respectfully, RAS, I disagree. I think there's a big difference > between being utterly unwilling to resolve the situation by peering > and merely refusing to purchase transit to a network that appears to > offer little or no value to the purchaser or their customers. Owen, can you please name me one single instance in the history of the Internet where a peering dispute which lead to network partitioning did NOT involve one side saying "hey, we're willing to peer" and the other side saying "no thanks"? Being the one who wants to peer means absolutely NOTHING here, the real question is which side is causing the partitioning, and in this case the answer is very clearly HE. HE wants to peer with Cogent, Cogent doesn't want to peer with HE, and thus you have an impass and there will be no peering. HE has no problem using transit to reach Cogent for IPv4 (I see HE reaching Cogent via 1299/Telia, and Cogent reaching HE via 3549/Global Crossing, both very clearly HE transit providers and Cogent peers), but HE has chosen not to use transit for the IPv6 traffic. Quite simply, HE feels that they are entitled to peer with Cogent for the IPv6 traffic, and has deliberately chosen to create this partition to try and force the issue. These are *PRECISELY* the same motivations and actions as EVERY OTHER NETWORK who has ever created a network partition in pursuit of peering that the other party doesn't want to give them, period. Again, this isn't necessarily a bad thing if HE thinks it can work to their long term advantage, but to try and claim that this is anything else is completely disingenuous. I understand that you have a PR position to take, and you may even have done a good job convincing the weak minded who don't understand how peering works that HE is the victim, but please don't try to feed a load of bullshit to the rest of us. :) -- Richard A Steenbergenhttp://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
Re: Cogent & HE
On 6/9/11 7:37 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: I was an HE Tunnel users long before I joined the company. In my experience, our free tunnel service is quite reliable and provides excellent connectivity. HE has been happily exchanging BGP and routing my /48 for several years. The high quality of this service and the quick resolution to my (very few) problems even on a free service is one of the things that attracted me to join the company. However, for those that want production-grade business-class tunnels, we have launched a paid tunnel service as well. For a while we were in a similar setup with HE - free BGP tunnel for our /48 to our provider who didn't have native IPv6 at the time. Turnaround time for issues was a few hours at most (if even that), and their knowledgeable BGP people helped us with some annoying/aggravating ARIN policies that initially prevented us from getting an AS number. So, maybe I'm biased in singing their praises. Its the little things that make all the difference, IMHO. -- Brielle Bruns The Summit Open Source Development Group http://www.sosdg.org/ http://www.ahbl.org
Re: Cogent & HE
On 6/9/11 3:06 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: You could, today, setup a IPv6 over IPv4 tunnel and HE will pay for the IPv4 transit at the cost of a little smaller lower MTU;) Just need to find folks on the other side to terminate those tunnels who find also that using a free service is a good idea for a commercial setup. I guess all this free IPv6 transit has a perfect SLA of course with quick resolution for problems and of course a proper clean prefix feed with properly aggregated prefixes. If you need that guarantee and SLA, I'm pretty sure HE won't turn down a paying customer. :) -- Brielle Bruns The Summit Open Source Development Group http://www.sosdg.org/ http://www.ahbl.org
Re: Cogent & HE
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Ken Chase wrote: > So we have to buy from BOTH HE and Cogent?! Sounds like market fixing to me! > :/ > > Guess if we do we can advertise that on our webpage... "now with BOTH halves > of the ipv6 internets!" Or just buy from someone who have sessions with both, who IOW can offer a full IPv6 Internet. Regards, Martin
Re: Cogent & HE
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 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 > > >
Re: Cogent & HE
On Jun 9, 2011, at 2:06 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: > On 2011-Jun-09 10:39, Saku Ytti wrote: >> On (2011-06-09 00:55 -0700), Owen DeLong wrote: >> >>> To be an IPv6 TIer 1, one has to peer with other IPv6 Tier 1s. HE has >>> aggressively tried to improve the situation through promiscuous peering >>> in every way possible. If you are interested in peering with HE and >>> you have a presence at any of the exchange points we are at, send >>> an email to peering at HE.NET and we will peer. >> >> 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. > > You could, today, setup a IPv6 over IPv4 tunnel and HE will pay for the > IPv4 transit at the cost of a little smaller lower MTU ;) > > Just need to find folks on the other side to terminate those tunnels who > find also that using a free service is a good idea for a commercial > setup. I guess all this free IPv6 transit has a perfect SLA of course > with quick resolution for problems and of course a proper clean prefix > feed with properly aggregated prefixes. > I was an HE Tunnel users long before I joined the company. In my experience, our free tunnel service is quite reliable and provides excellent connectivity. HE has been happily exchanging BGP and routing my /48 for several years. The high quality of this service and the quick resolution to my (very few) problems even on a free service is one of the things that attracted me to join the company. However, for those that want production-grade business-class tunnels, we have launched a paid tunnel service as well. Owen
RE: Cogent & HE
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? --- 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 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
Re: Cogent & HE
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 3:39 AM, Saku Ytti 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
Re: Cogent & HE
On (2011-06-09 18:03 +0900), Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > Even though HE gives away free transit now, Owen said nothing about free > transit. Yes there might be that some networks are unable physically to connect to HE. But I'm sure within time HE will have global presence to reach all networks directly. -- ++ytti
Re: Cogent & HE
On 2011-Jun-09 10:39, Saku Ytti wrote: > On (2011-06-09 00:55 -0700), Owen DeLong wrote: > >> To be an IPv6 TIer 1, one has to peer with other IPv6 Tier 1s. HE has >> aggressively tried to improve the situation through promiscuous peering >> in every way possible. If you are interested in peering with HE and >> you have a presence at any of the exchange points we are at, send >> an email to peering at HE.NET and we will peer. > > 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. You could, today, setup a IPv6 over IPv4 tunnel and HE will pay for the IPv4 transit at the cost of a little smaller lower MTU ;) Just need to find folks on the other side to terminate those tunnels who find also that using a free service is a good idea for a commercial setup. I guess all this free IPv6 transit has a perfect SLA of course with quick resolution for problems and of course a proper clean prefix feed with properly aggregated prefixes. Greets, Jeroen
Re: Cogent & HE
Composed on a virtual keyboard, please forgive typos. On Jun 9, 2011, at 17:39, Saku Ytti wrote: > On (2011-06-09 00:55 -0700), Owen DeLong wrote: > >> To be an IPv6 TIer 1, one has to peer with other IPv6 Tier 1s. HE has >> aggressively tried to improve the situation through promiscuous peering >> in every way possible. If you are interested in peering with HE and >> you have a presence at any of the exchange points we are at, send >> an email to peering at HE.NET and we will peer. > > 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. Non sequitor. Even though HE gives away free transit now, Owen said nothing about free transit. As for free peering, LOTS of networks freely peer and make money, including my current employer. (Actually, I think more open peering networks make money than closed peering networks. :-) -- TTFN, patrick
Re: Cogent & HE
On (2011-06-09 00:55 -0700), Owen DeLong wrote: > To be an IPv6 TIer 1, one has to peer with other IPv6 Tier 1s. HE has > aggressively tried to improve the situation through promiscuous peering > in every way possible. If you are interested in peering with HE and > you have a presence at any of the exchange points we are at, send > an email to peering at HE.NET and we will peer. 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. As a gesture of good faith, when I get this 100% free Internet, I vouche to return the favor by sending all my downstream customers 5USD gift card to iTunes, you're welcome. -- ++ytti
Re: Cogent & HE
On Jun 8, 2011, at 1:05 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 07:48:42PM +, Brielle Bruns wrote: >> Has been going on for a long while now. HE even made a cake for >> Cogent (IIRC), to no avail. >> >> But, this is not surprising. A lot of public/major peering issues >> with v4 over the past few years has been cogent vs. someone else. > > When two networks are not able to reach each other like this, it usually > requires the active willing participation of both parties to allow the > situation to continue. In this case, HE is doing *PRECISELY* the same > thing that Cogent is doing. They're refusing to purchase transit, and > making the decision to intentionally not carry a full table or have > global reachability, in the hopes that it will strengthen their > strategic position for peering in the long term (i.e. they both want to > be an "IPv6 Tier 1"). > Not exactly. We are perfectly willing to peer with Cogent. They are not only refusing to purchase transit, they are refusing to peer. To me, that's a pretty big difference. To be an IPv6 TIer 1, one has to peer with other IPv6 Tier 1s. HE has aggressively tried to improve the situation through promiscuous peering in every way possible. If you are interested in peering with HE and you have a presence at any of the exchange points we are at, send an email to peering at HE.NET and we will peer. I'd say that's pretty different from what Cogent is doing. > I'm not making a judgement call about the rightness or wrongness of the > strategy (and after all, it clearly hasn't been THAT big of an issue > considering that it has been this way for MANY months), but to attempt > to "blame" one party for this issue is the height of absurdity. PR > stunts and cake baking not withstanding, they're both equally complicit. > Respectfully, RAS, I disagree. I think there's a big difference between being utterly unwilling to resolve the situation by peering and merely refusing to purchase transit to a network that appears to offer little or no value to the purchaser or their customers. Owen
Re: Cogent & HE
On Jun 8, 2011, at 1:10 PM, Ken Chase wrote: > On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 03:05:05PM -0500, Richard A Steenbergen said: >> global reachability, in the hopes that it will strengthen their >> strategic position for peering in the long term (i.e. they both want to >> be an "IPv6 Tier 1"). >> >> I'm not making a judgement call about the rightness or wrongness of the >> strategy (and after all, it clearly hasn't been THAT big of an issue >> considering that it has been this way for MANY months), but to attempt >> to "blame" one party for this issue is the height of absurdity. PR >> stunts and cake baking not withstanding, they're both equally complicit. > > So we have to buy from BOTH HE and Cogent?! Sounds like market fixing to me! > :/ > Not at all... You can peer with HE. Try that with Cogent and then tell me it's the same. Owen
Re: Cogent & HE
On Jun 8, 2011, at 9:18 PM, Kevin Loch wrote: > Richard A Steenbergen wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 06:39:02PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: >>> 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". >> I'm ready, willing, and lets say for the purposes of this discussion begging >> to peer with every Tier 1, but some of them aren't willing to peer with me. >> Does that mean I should stop buying transit and blame them for my resulting >> lack of global reachability? > > Do you have half the routing table as your customer base? No one does, most especially neither 174 nor 6369. (Although GBL3 will be able to make a good stab at it if they don't shed too many customers post-integration.) -- TTFN, patrick
Re: Cogent & HE
Richard A Steenbergen wrote: On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 06:39:02PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: 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". I'm ready, willing, and lets say for the purposes of this discussion begging to peer with every Tier 1, but some of them aren't willing to peer with me. Does that mean I should stop buying transit and blame them for my resulting lack of global reachability? Do you have half the routing table as your customer base? - Kevin
Re: Cogent & HE
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: >> >> 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". > > I'm ready, willing, and lets say for the purposes of this discussion > begging to peer with every Tier 1, but some of them aren't willing to > peer with me. Does that mean I should stop buying transit and blame them > for my resulting lack of global reachability? If I could convince my > customers to accept that line of bullshit it would certainly reduce my > 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 > Internet to make sure they are, you know, actually connected to the > Internet. Choosing not to do so and then throwing up your hands and > saying "oh I can't help it, they won't peer with me" is not a valid > excuse, at least not in my book or the book of anyone who pays me money > to deliver their packets. And this isn't even a case of not being ABLE > to buy sufficient capacity via a transit path (ala Comcast), this is > just two networks who have mutually decided two remain partitioned from > each other in the pursuit of long term strategic advantage. Ultimately > both parties share responsibility for this issue, and you can't escape > 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 >> _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. > > I know you're not naive enough to think that HE is giving away free IPv6 > transit purely out of the kindness of their heart. They're doing it to > bulk up their IPv6 customer base, so they can compete with larger > networks like Cogent, and make a play for Tier 1-dom in exactly the same > way that Cogent has done with IPv4. And more power to them for it, it > may well be a smart long term strategic move on their part, but with > every wannabe Tier 1 network comes partitioning and peering disputes, as > 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 > your treatment at the hands of other networks and their peering disputes > 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%".) -- TTFN, patrick
Re: Cogent & HE
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 06:39:02PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > > 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". I'm ready, willing, and lets say for the purposes of this discussion begging to peer with every Tier 1, but some of them aren't willing to peer with me. Does that mean I should stop buying transit and blame them for my resulting lack of global reachability? If I could convince my customers to accept that line of bullshit it would certainly reduce my transit costs, but I have a sneaking suspicion they wouldn't. :) Ultimately it is the responsibility of everyone who connects to the Internet to make sure they are, you know, actually connected to the Internet. Choosing not to do so and then throwing up your hands and saying "oh I can't help it, they won't peer with me" is not a valid excuse, at least not in my book or the book of anyone who pays me money to deliver their packets. And this isn't even a case of not being ABLE to buy sufficient capacity via a transit path (ala Comcast), this is just two networks who have mutually decided two remain partitioned from each other in the pursuit of long term strategic advantage. Ultimately both parties share responsibility for this issue, and you can't escape that just because you have a tube of icing and some spare time. :) > 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. Absolutely. This is just like any other IPv4 peering dispute, the only difference is IPv6 is so unimportant in the grand scheme of the Internet that there hasn't been enough external pressure from customers on either side to force a settlement. Shockingly, HE manages to buy plenty of IPv4 transit to reach Cogent and many other networks, no doubt because they wouldn't have any (paying) customers if they didn't. :) > 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. I know you're not naive enough to think that HE is giving away free IPv6 transit purely out of the kindness of their heart. They're doing it to bulk up their IPv6 customer base, so they can compete with larger networks like Cogent, and make a play for Tier 1-dom in exactly the same way that Cogent has done with IPv4. And more power to them for it, it may well be a smart long term strategic move on their part, but with every wannabe Tier 1 network comes partitioning and peering disputes, as they try to trade short term customer pain for long term advantages. Sorry to all the HE guys, but trying to simultaniously complain about your treatment at the hands of other networks and their peering disputes while emulating their actions is bullshit and you know it. :) -- Richard A Steenbergenhttp://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
Re: Cogent & HE
On Jun 8, 2011, at 4:05 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 07:48:42PM +, Brielle Bruns wrote: >> Has been going on for a long while now. HE even made a cake for >> Cogent (IIRC), to no avail. >> >> But, this is not surprising. A lot of public/major peering issues >> with v4 over the past few years has been cogent vs. someone else. > > When two networks are not able to reach each other like this, it usually > requires the active willing participation of both parties to allow the > situation to continue. In this case, HE is doing *PRECISELY* the same > 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. -- TTFN, patrick > They're refusing to purchase transit, and > making the decision to intentionally not carry a full table or have > global reachability, in the hopes that it will strengthen their > strategic position for peering in the long term (i.e. they both want to > be an "IPv6 Tier 1"). > > I'm not making a judgement call about the rightness or wrongness of the > strategy (and after all, it clearly hasn't been THAT big of an issue > considering that it has been this way for MANY months), but to attempt > to "blame" one party for this issue is the height of absurdity. PR > stunts and cake baking not withstanding, they're both equally complicit. > > -- > Richard A Steenbergenhttp://www.e-gerbil.net/ras > GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC) >
RE: Cogent & HE
For what it's worth, we have a number of IPv6 peers in place plus IPv6 transit from Level(3), HE, and TiNet. For downstream customers, we are currently exporting them 6250 prefixes on IPv6. >From TiNet we are getting 6168 prefixes >From Level(3) we are getting 4933 prefixes >From HE we are getting 5990 prefixes Hope this helps a bit ;) -p -Original Message- From: jayha...@gmail.com [mailto:jayha...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Jay Hanke Sent: June-08-11 4:47 PM To: Paul Stewart Cc: Ken Chase; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Cogent & HE On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Paul Stewart wrote: > Or peer with HE and buy transit from Cogent (or someone on Cogent's friendly > list) - this is where I think their strategy is going to go after a while > with a lot of folks (if they have the option - that's the key). HE will > peer with anyone I believe - Cogent has much more stringent "tier1" rules on > peering. How divided is the table? I see about 98 routes transiting Cogent ASN via a HE connection. Customer has only has HE as v6 upstream. An previous post listed about a 1300 prefix difference. That's pretty significant unless it's due to aggregation or something. I'd also be interested to see the size of the other major carriers v6 tables so I can patch a whole until the other upstream is ready. Jay
Re: Cogent & HE
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Paul Stewart wrote: > Or peer with HE and buy transit from Cogent (or someone on Cogent's friendly > list) - this is where I think their strategy is going to go after a while > with a lot of folks (if they have the option - that's the key). HE will > peer with anyone I believe - Cogent has much more stringent "tier1" rules on > peering. How divided is the table? I see about 98 routes transiting Cogent ASN via a HE connection. Customer has only has HE as v6 upstream. An previous post listed about a 1300 prefix difference. That's pretty significant unless it's due to aggregation or something. I'd also be interested to see the size of the other major carriers v6 tables so I can patch a whole until the other upstream is ready. Jay
Re: Cogent & HE
On 6/8/2011 3:10 PM, Ken Chase wrote: So we have to buy from BOTH HE and Cogent?! Sounds like market fixing to me! :/ Guess if we do we can advertise that on our webpage... "now with BOTH halves of the ipv6 internets!" No, you buy from the provider who doesn't get in disputes and peers with both of them. :) Jack
RE: Cogent & HE
Or peer with HE and buy transit from Cogent (or someone on Cogent's friendly list) - this is where I think their strategy is going to go after a while with a lot of folks (if they have the option - that's the key). HE will peer with anyone I believe - Cogent has much more stringent "tier1" rules on peering. -p -Original Message- From: Ken Chase [mailto:k...@sizone.org] Sent: June-08-11 4:10 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Cogent & HE On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 03:05:05PM -0500, Richard A Steenbergen said: >global reachability, in the hopes that it will strengthen their >strategic position for peering in the long term (i.e. they both want to >be an "IPv6 Tier 1"). > >I'm not making a judgement call about the rightness or wrongness of the >strategy (and after all, it clearly hasn't been THAT big of an issue >considering that it has been this way for MANY months), but to attempt >to "blame" one party for this issue is the height of absurdity. PR >stunts and cake baking not withstanding, they're both equally complicit. So we have to buy from BOTH HE and Cogent?! Sounds like market fixing to me! :/ Guess if we do we can advertise that on our webpage... "now with BOTH halves of the ipv6 internets!" /kc -- Ken Chase - k...@heavycomputing.ca skype:kenchase23 +1 416 897 6284 Toronto Canada Heavy Computing - Clued bandwidth, colocation and managed linux VPS @151 Front St. W.
Re: Cogent & HE
On Jun 8, 2011, at 4:10 PM, Ken Chase wrote: > So we have to buy from BOTH HE and Cogent?! Sounds like market fixing to me! > :/ > > Guess if we do we can advertise that on our webpage... "now with BOTH halves > of the ipv6 internets!" Or neither. There are other networks that carry a full IPv6 table. If you are behind 174 or 6939 for IPv6 and have other transits, make sure you can use those ports as well for your IPv6 activities, even if you're just doing an internal trial. - Jared
RE: Cogent & HE
Agree 100% - to make it simple and they can both achieve this "IPv6 Tier1 Status" why don't they just peer and then it's win/win. I know I'm oversimplifying it but nobody is winning in my opinion today. The "peeing contest" could probably be settled in a short period of time and move on. My two cents worth... -p -Original Message- From: Richard A Steenbergen [mailto:r...@e-gerbil.net] Sent: June-08-11 4:05 PM To: Brielle Bruns Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Cogent & HE On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 07:48:42PM +, Brielle Bruns wrote: > Has been going on for a long while now. HE even made a cake for > Cogent (IIRC), to no avail. > > But, this is not surprising. A lot of public/major peering issues > with v4 over the past few years has been cogent vs. someone else. When two networks are not able to reach each other like this, it usually requires the active willing participation of both parties to allow the situation to continue. In this case, HE is doing *PRECISELY* the same thing that Cogent is doing. They're refusing to purchase transit, and making the decision to intentionally not carry a full table or have global reachability, in the hopes that it will strengthen their strategic position for peering in the long term (i.e. they both want to be an "IPv6 Tier 1"). I'm not making a judgement call about the rightness or wrongness of the strategy (and after all, it clearly hasn't been THAT big of an issue considering that it has been this way for MANY months), but to attempt to "blame" one party for this issue is the height of absurdity. PR stunts and cake baking not withstanding, they're both equally complicit. -- Richard A Steenbergenhttp://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
Re: Cogent & HE
On 6/8/2011 3:05 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: I'm not making a judgement call about the rightness or wrongness of the strategy (and after all, it clearly hasn't been THAT big of an issue considering that it has been this way for MANY months), but to attempt to "blame" one party for this issue is the height of absurdity. PR stunts and cake baking not withstanding, they're both equally complicit. +1 Also looks like Level3 still hasn't peered with HE, though they have fixed their peering to google at least. Jack
Re: Cogent & HE
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 03:05:05PM -0500, Richard A Steenbergen said: >global reachability, in the hopes that it will strengthen their >strategic position for peering in the long term (i.e. they both want to >be an "IPv6 Tier 1"). > >I'm not making a judgement call about the rightness or wrongness of the >strategy (and after all, it clearly hasn't been THAT big of an issue >considering that it has been this way for MANY months), but to attempt >to "blame" one party for this issue is the height of absurdity. PR >stunts and cake baking not withstanding, they're both equally complicit. So we have to buy from BOTH HE and Cogent?! Sounds like market fixing to me! :/ Guess if we do we can advertise that on our webpage... "now with BOTH halves of the ipv6 internets!" /kc -- Ken Chase - k...@heavycomputing.ca skype:kenchase23 +1 416 897 6284 Toronto Canada Heavy Computing - Clued bandwidth, colocation and managed linux VPS @151 Front St. W.
Re: Cogent & HE
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 08:02:14PM +, Nathan Eisenberg said: >> Has been going on for a long while now. HE even made a cake for Cogent >> (IIRC), to no avail. > >http://www.flickr.com/photos/77519640@N00/4031195041/ ObMeme[tm]: cake was a lie? /kc -- Ken Chase - k...@heavycomputing.ca skype:kenchase23 +1 416 897 6284 Toronto Canada Heavy Computing - Clued bandwidth, colocation and managed linux VPS @151 Front St. W.
Re: Cogent & HE
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 07:48:42PM +, Brielle Bruns wrote: > Has been going on for a long while now. HE even made a cake for > Cogent (IIRC), to no avail. > > But, this is not surprising. A lot of public/major peering issues > with v4 over the past few years has been cogent vs. someone else. When two networks are not able to reach each other like this, it usually requires the active willing participation of both parties to allow the situation to continue. In this case, HE is doing *PRECISELY* the same thing that Cogent is doing. They're refusing to purchase transit, and making the decision to intentionally not carry a full table or have global reachability, in the hopes that it will strengthen their strategic position for peering in the long term (i.e. they both want to be an "IPv6 Tier 1"). I'm not making a judgement call about the rightness or wrongness of the strategy (and after all, it clearly hasn't been THAT big of an issue considering that it has been this way for MANY months), but to attempt to "blame" one party for this issue is the height of absurdity. PR stunts and cake baking not withstanding, they're both equally complicit. -- Richard A Steenbergenhttp://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
RE: Cogent & HE
> Has been going on for a long while now. HE even made a cake for Cogent > (IIRC), to no avail. http://www.flickr.com/photos/77519640@N00/4031195041/
Re: Cogent & HE
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 6/8/11 3:48 PM, Brielle Bruns wrote: > Has been going on for a long while now. HE even made a cake for Cogent > (IIRC), to no avail. > > But, this is not surprising. A lot of public/major peering issues with v4 > over the past few years has been cogent vs. someone else. > > Brielle > --Original Message-- > From: Dennis Burgess > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Cogent & HE > Sent: Jun 8, 2011 1:43 PM > > Just noted that cogent does not have a IPv6 route to any subnet in HE, > and HE does not have any routes to Cogent! > > Looks like we have different Global IPv6 tables? Or does Cogent just > NOT peer IPv6 peer with anyone else! > > Dennis > > > You get what you pay for with Cogent YMMV -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.12 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJN79U0AAoJEOcnyWxdB1Iro1IIAKxSFxPFbzQ3oTGwr6FR6MQ1 KIf0plsRJstmWmhygvXAwC3C9PUlBlaPqEc+KcI1frrMHNGb1fSmmQLRsxdQ22XX KIrIHhaYf9W/03twyp5iVNmZLcYKLkDO8SvaW4K0z0KRbMrrIgCkvOeekE28hz7n q/HTOpvvx+A1npS+wbvl3siIfrUSeXNVOhMm1/noA/VboFbaIhRQmRFh6ypHeZWg u7hk32DsotWlzJOocSbDda3+MPF4HCCWCN8tKC2WMUybaz2Wp/YRMUeca4fkckmk w37RVkuglrA3DwhfM+DihOQXoXYRFLMhiT4qb3+uwveolhyPA8q2YOdgLUo+qXA= =h0uX -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Cogent & HE
On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 14:43:23 -0500, "Dennis Burgess" wrote: Just noted that cogent does not have a IPv6 route to any subnet in HE, and HE does not have any routes to Cogent! Looks like we have different Global IPv6 tables? Or does Cogent just NOT peer IPv6 peer with anyone else! Dennis Hi. There is some difference in prefix count between the two: AS6939 6074 AS174 4787 These are prefixes announced to transitcustomer of both HE and Cogent. -- Fredrik Holmqvist I2B (Internet 2 Business) 070-740 5033
re: Cogent & HE
Correct, The only way around this currently is to peer with both cogent and HE. If you have cogent, You can 6to4 w/BGP with HE. I would consider that just a patch for the problem. I would do it just for the reachablility. Nick Olsen Network Operations (855) FLSPEED x106 From: "Dennis Burgess" Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 3:45 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Cogent & HE Just noted that cogent does not have a IPv6 route to any subnet in HE, and HE does not have any routes to Cogent! Looks like we have different Global IPv6 tables? Or does Cogent just NOT peer IPv6 peer with anyone else! Dennis
Re: Cogent & HE
Has been going on for a long while now. HE even made a cake for Cogent (IIRC), to no avail. But, this is not surprising. A lot of public/major peering issues with v4 over the past few years has been cogent vs. someone else. Brielle --Original Message-- From: Dennis Burgess To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Cogent & HE Sent: Jun 8, 2011 1:43 PM Just noted that cogent does not have a IPv6 route to any subnet in HE, and HE does not have any routes to Cogent! Looks like we have different Global IPv6 tables? Or does Cogent just NOT peer IPv6 peer with anyone else! Dennis -- Brielle Bruns http://www.sosdg.org / http://www.ahbl.org
Re: Cogent & HE
On 6/8/2011 12:43, Dennis Burgess wrote: > Just noted that cogent does not have a IPv6 route to any subnet in HE, > and HE does not have any routes to Cogent! > > Looks like we have different Global IPv6 tables? Or does Cogent just > NOT peer IPv6 peer with anyone else! > Cogent and HE don't talk anymore, so yeah, you're living in a partitioned world if you only have Cogent. It's been this way for a while. ~Seth
Cogent & HE
Just noted that cogent does not have a IPv6 route to any subnet in HE, and HE does not have any routes to Cogent! Looks like we have different Global IPv6 tables? Or does Cogent just NOT peer IPv6 peer with anyone else! Dennis
