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:ras@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 +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. 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)