Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it
From owen@delong.com Fri Jan 22 10:25:26 2016 However, I think your description of the scenario is rather heavily skewed
Most posts are bashing Cogent so it's bad of me to say they are equally free to do whatever they want with their network? Mob rule... I favour neither side. Nobody has to buy from either of them.
especially when you consider that Cogent is basically the only remaining major (I find it hard to call them a tier 1 given their behavior) provider that still refuses SFI of any form with HE.
tier 1 seems consistent with Cogents refusal. brandon
Subject: Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it Date: Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:28:01PM +0000 Quoting Brandon Butterworth (brandon@rd.bbc.co.uk):
tier 1 seems consistent with Cogents refusal.
one does not become a tier 1 by refusing to peer. an actual tier 1 will of course most of the time refuse settlement-free interconnection with smaller actors to protect their revenue stream, but the traffic volumes and short settlement-free paths to large parts of the Internet are what make them a tier-1. do you hear me, medium-sized swedish isp full of clued people but with a serious case of peering reality distorsion? -- Måns Nilsson primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina MN-1334-RIPE +46 705 989668 Can you MAIL a BEAN CAKE?
On Jan 27, 2016, at 14:43 , Måns Nilsson <mansaxel@besserwisser.org> wrote:
Subject: Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it Date: Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:28:01PM +0000 Quoting Brandon Butterworth (brandon@rd.bbc.co.uk):
tier 1 seems consistent with Cogents refusal.
one does not become a tier 1 by refusing to peer. an actual tier 1 will of course most of the time refuse settlement-free interconnection with smaller actors to protect their revenue stream, but the traffic volumes and short settlement-free paths to large parts of the Internet are what make them a tier-1.
I disagree with this last part. I realize that the common wisdom among execs at so-called tier-1 providers is that refusing SFI protects their revenue stream, but I believe it’s not true. In fact, I think that a willingness to peer with your customers and anyone else on the internet wherever you can do so for very little cost (for example, where it’s just one more peering session at an IXP, no additional port cost, circuit, XC, etc.) settlement free can only increase your business. IMHO, a truly good tier-1 will charge for transit, set their metrics and prefs such that their paid ports are preferred over their non-revenue ports, and provides peer routes only on the SFIs. This turns out to be mostly a win-win situation for everyone, including the tier-1 in the long run. OTOH, look what happened to SPRINT when they went on their depeering binge. They went from the cat-bird seat of being the top Tier-1 provider on the planet to the modern day status of “also ran”. I suspect the only reason Cogent isn’t losing ground as fast as SPRINT did has to do with two things: 1. They aren’t turning off existing peers as aggressively as SPRINT did. 2. They have the cheapest transit prices of just about anyone except possibly HE (why they are in a race to the bottom with). However, even at their current rate, this will likely catch up with them sooner or later and cause them some discomfort. YMMV. Owen
On 28/Jan/16 03:36, Owen DeLong wrote:
I disagree with this last part.
I realize that the common wisdom among execs at so-called tier-1 providers is that refusing SFI protects their revenue stream, but I believe it’s not true.
In fact, I think that a willingness to peer with your customers and anyone else on the internet wherever you can do so for very little cost (for example, where it’s just one more peering session at an IXP, no additional port cost, circuit, XC, etc.) settlement free can only increase your business.
IMHO, a truly good tier-1 will charge for transit, set their metrics and prefs such that their paid ports are preferred over their non-revenue ports, and provides peer routes only on the SFIs.
This turns out to be mostly a win-win situation for everyone, including the tier-1 in the long run.
I tend to agree with Owen on this one. We, last year, transitioned from selective to open peering - despite our scope - in the region we serve (primarily Africa). It has only improved the quality of our service (a great deal of Africa still exchanges traffic in Europe), lowered costs, made customers happy and generated a lot of community goodwill. Obviously, we do not provide free transit across SFI ports, and we have practical implementations in place to ensure that we only handle customer traffic through customer-facing links, removing the potential of handling customer traffic through peering links (particularly with customers who are multi-homed to you and another SFI peer of yours). While I do not disagree that larger providers looking to protect their revenues is an economically-sound objective, I think the typical peering policies of old do not entirely hold up in 2016. Mark.
While I do not disagree that larger providers looking to protect their revenues is an economically-sound objective, I think the typical peering policies of old do not entirely hold up in 2016.
I’m pretty convinced that they never really did. I realize they’ve been popular conventional wisdom for some time now, but that was brought about when Telcos started being the dominant players in the ISP market and I always regarded it as an artifact of “carrier mentality” where they were so used to the settlement mechanisms of the traditional telephone network. The reality is that the traditional telephone network has been getting slowly superseded by the internet largely because of the differences in the settlement model. If TDM and its settlement model were cheaper than VOIP, there would be little reason to spend money deploying VOIP. Unified communications has some benefits, but not really enough in most real world implementations to overcome the costs if it wasn’t reducing the corporate phone-spend. For many years, telcos tried all kinds of strange things and in some remote regions these are still happening. For example in some places, they sought regulatory protection of their “right to revenue” for voice calls by actually getting laws against VOIP services and the like. Those laws still exist in some areas and their economies are suffering for it. Bottom line, I’ve never seen a case where any ISP has definitively benefited from a restrictive peering policy. At best, it’s a neutral factor that most people just sort of accept. Routinely, it drives business away from such ISPs towards Tier-2s with good transit relationships and a better peering policy. At worst, I’ve seen it create active bad will in various communities as is the current case with Cogent and is a demonstrable factor in the decline of SPRINT. Owen
On 28/Jan/16 11:16, Owen DeLong wrote:
Bottom line, I’ve never seen a case where any ISP has definitively benefited from a restrictive peering policy. At best, it’s a neutral factor that most people just sort of accept. Routinely, it drives business away from such ISPs towards Tier-2s with good transit relationships and a better peering policy. At worst, I’ve seen it create active bad will in various communities as is the current case with Cogent and is a demonstrable factor in the decline of SPRINT.
Agree. Mark.
Subject: Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it Date: Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 05:36:13PM -0800 Quoting Owen DeLong (owen@delong.com):
On Jan 27, 2016, at 14:43 , Måns Nilsson <mansaxel@besserwisser.org> wrote:
Subject: Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it Date: Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:28:01PM +0000 Quoting Brandon Butterworth (brandon@rd.bbc.co.uk):
tier 1 seems consistent with Cogents refusal.
one does not become a tier 1 by refusing to peer. an actual tier 1 will of course most of the time refuse settlement-free interconnection with smaller actors to protect their revenue stream, but the traffic volumes and short settlement-free paths to large parts of the Internet are what make them a tier-1.
I disagree with this last part.
So do I, actually. I was just reporting what Tier-1 operators might feel be good for business. Not that I believe that they're right. -- Måns Nilsson primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina MN-1334-RIPE +46 705 989668 On SECOND thought, maybe I'll heat up some BAKED BEANS and watch REGIS PHILBIN ... It's GREAT to be ALIVE!!
almost all top tier providers have closed peering policies, many outright draconian. folk can rant on nanog all they want if it makes them feel good or self-righteous. won't change a damned thing. bunch of whiners, whining about something that has been a reality for over 20 years and is not about to change. but like spam, nanog bandwidth is cheap. so rant away. randy
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
folk can rant on nanog all they want if it makes them feel good or self-righteous.
Hi Randy, It DOES make me feel good. And a little self-righteous.
won't change a damned thing.
Some FCC employees read this forum. My impression is that they're not terribly far from concluding that closed peering policies are anti-competitive. When I have such impressions I'm usually off by years. Still, it would be nice if just once an industry cleaned itself up -before- regulators forced the issue. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
Nothing says a better Internet than one the government pokes their nose around in. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Herrin" <bill@herrin.us> To: "Randy Bush" <randy@psg.com> Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 5:25:47 PM Subject: Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
folk can rant on nanog all they want if it makes them feel good or self-righteous.
Hi Randy, It DOES make me feel good. And a little self-righteous.
won't change a damned thing.
Some FCC employees read this forum. My impression is that they're not terribly far from concluding that closed peering policies are anti-competitive. When I have such impressions I'm usually off by years. Still, it would be nice if just once an industry cleaned itself up -before- regulators forced the issue. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
Sadly, the law firms with big routers seem to prefer a regulatory environment that they can manipulate, so it’s a tough situation to achieve a good outcome. They are the ones that are blocking the industry from arriving at a good outcome without regulation and they will likely be the ones driving regulation in ridiculous directions away from good outcomes once we start to see regulation. The way lawyers redefine terms and obfuscate to make regulations say what they want instead of what any normal person would think they actually say is truly impressive. Owen
On Jan 28, 2016, at 18:01 , Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
Nothing says a better Internet than one the government pokes their nose around in.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Herrin" <bill@herrin.us> To: "Randy Bush" <randy@psg.com> Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 5:25:47 PM Subject: Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
folk can rant on nanog all they want if it makes them feel good or self-righteous.
Hi Randy,
It DOES make me feel good. And a little self-righteous.
won't change a damned thing.
Some FCC employees read this forum. My impression is that they're not terribly far from concluding that closed peering policies are anti-competitive. When I have such impressions I'm usually off by years. Still, it would be nice if just once an industry cleaned itself up -before- regulators forced the issue.
Regards, Bill Herrin
-- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
participants (7)
-
Brandon Butterworth -
Mark Tinka -
Mike Hammett -
Måns Nilsson -
Owen DeLong -
Randy Bush -
William Herrin