On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> 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