On Jun 8, 2011, at 4:05 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 07:48:42PM +0000, 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 Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)