ok, that's a positive answer. but let me ask you a question: do HE.NET peer with cogent? level3? that the way i'm looking arround SIXXS and they look like a IPV6 POLICE ! ----- Original Message ----- From: Arjan Van Der Oest To: Meftah Tayeb Cc: ipv6-ops@lists.cluenet.de ; nanog@nanog.org Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 4:20 PM Subject: Re: Open Letters to Sixxs On 15Sep, 2011, at 16:02 , Meftah Tayeb wrote: Hello People i have one question: why SIXXS is very strict like that ? Why sent this to this list. Consider using another tunnelbroker if you're not satisfied with Sixxs. I can recommend Hurricane, www.tunnelbroker.com (this is, by no means, a judgement on Sixxs and their services). -- Met vriendelijke groet, Arjan van der Oest Senior Network Engineer / Security Officer Voiceworks BV - Editiestraat 29 - 1321 NG Almere __________ Information provenant d'ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version de la base des signatures de virus 6465 (20110915) __________ Le message a été vérifié par ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information provenant d'ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version de la base des signatures de virus 6465 (20110915) __________ Le message a été vérifié par ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com
On 15 September 2011 15:12, Meftah Tayeb <tayeb.meftah@gmail.com> wrote:
ok, that's a positive answer. but let me ask you a question: do HE.NET peer with cogent? level3?
4 189 ms 134 ms 99 ms 10gigabitethernet7-4.core1.nyc4.he.net [2001:470:0:3e::1] 5 131 ms 152 ms 111 ms 2001:470:0:202::2 6 144 ms 147 ms 238 ms 2001:1900:19:7::4 7 132 ms 241 ms 143 ms vl-4060.car2.NewYork2.Level3.net [2001:1900:4:1::fe] [Jitter is my cable connection, not reflective of the performance of HEs network] As for cogent - Does anyone really care? this is only a problem for reaching a single homed network behind cogent, and anyone running such a network knows that their IPv6 connectivity doesn't work properly anyway and they are the broken ones. Whatever you think of the issues surrounding the peering dispute (I am sure at least comcast agree with cogent that a Tier 1 network should pay what is essentially a Tier 2 network for peering!), the fact remains that HE did get there first with their defacto tier 1 status, and for the time being at least "working IPv6" is realistically "working IPv6 connection to HE and peers". The more users/content that is behind HE and peers that is not reachable from cogent the better, as it puts more pressure on them to start behaving themselves and peering properly like everyone else. - Mike
Good thinking mike i do have a VoIp carrier single homed with Cogent. any solution? (*NO IPV4!*) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Jones" <mike@mikejones.in> To: "Meftah Tayeb" <tayeb.meftah@gmail.com> Cc: "Arjan Van Der Oest" <Arjan@voiceworks.nl>; <nanog@nanog.org>; <ipv6-ops@lists.cluenet.de> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 4:58 PM Subject: Re: Open Letters to Sixxs
On 15 September 2011 15:12, Meftah Tayeb <tayeb.meftah@gmail.com> wrote:
ok, that's a positive answer. but let me ask you a question: do HE.NET peer with cogent? level3?
4 189 ms 134 ms 99 ms 10gigabitethernet7-4.core1.nyc4.he.net [2001:470:0:3e::1] 5 131 ms 152 ms 111 ms 2001:470:0:202::2 6 144 ms 147 ms 238 ms 2001:1900:19:7::4 7 132 ms 241 ms 143 ms vl-4060.car2.NewYork2.Level3.net [2001:1900:4:1::fe] [Jitter is my cable connection, not reflective of the performance of HEs network]
As for cogent - Does anyone really care? this is only a problem for reaching a single homed network behind cogent, and anyone running such a network knows that their IPv6 connectivity doesn't work properly anyway and they are the broken ones.
Whatever you think of the issues surrounding the peering dispute (I am sure at least comcast agree with cogent that a Tier 1 network should pay what is essentially a Tier 2 network for peering!), the fact remains that HE did get there first with their defacto tier 1 status, and for the time being at least "working IPv6" is realistically "working IPv6 connection to HE and peers".
The more users/content that is behind HE and peers that is not reachable from cogent the better, as it puts more pressure on them to start behaving themselves and peering properly like everyone else.
- Mike
__________ Information provenant d'ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version de la base des signatures de virus 6465 (20110915) __________
Le message a été vérifié par ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
__________ Information provenant d'ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version de la base des signatures de virus 6465 (20110915) __________ Le message a été vérifié par ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 17:01:33 +0200, Meftah Tayeb said:
Good thinking mike i do have a VoIp carrier single homed with Cogent. any solution?
Sure. Make sure you have alternate plans for when Cogent gets into another peering tiff. Not *if*, but *when*. And you probably want to have a long, detailed, technical discussion with your Voip carrier about what *they* intend to do when Cogent gets into a peering tiff. And while you're at it, see if you can find out what *other* surprises their network design has in it - I'm willing to bet a large pizza with everything but anchovies that "single homed with Cogent" is *not* the only massive deficiency in their network - it's probably the equivalent of finding a brown M&M backstage at a Van Halen concert... (Yes, there's corner cases where "single homing to a Tier-1" makes business sense, if the pipe is really cheap and you can survive the revenue hit caused by a routing/peering spat. I don't think "VOIP carrier" is one of those corner cases)
participants (3)
-
Meftah Tayeb -
Mike Jones -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu