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-
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 Intern
t; 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).
> H
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 respon
4 (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 inte
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 custo
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 netwo
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 littl
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 valu
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 servi
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
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, wh
inal 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:
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
>>
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: C
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
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
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
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 peeri
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 th
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
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
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
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 d
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
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 pee
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
>>
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 3:1
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 anyo
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 wit
ot;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 th
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 IP
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:
&
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 iss
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 o
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.
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 els
> 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/
t 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 H
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
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 ta
@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!
De
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'
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
44 matches
Mail list logo
