Hi All, we got an issue today that announces from Cogent don't reach Hurricane Electric. HE support said that's a feature, not a bug. So we have splitted Internet again? I have to change at least one of my uplinks because of it, which one is better to drop, HE or Cogent?
hasn't this been the case for ~10 yrs now? On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Max Tulyev <maxtul@netassist.ua> wrote:
Hi All,
we got an issue today that announces from Cogent don't reach Hurricane Electric. HE support said that's a feature, not a bug.
So we have splitted Internet again?
I have to change at least one of my uplinks because of it, which one is better to drop, HE or Cogent?
Just hit it for first time... Is there any other similar splits in IPv6 world? On 01.12.15 21:33, Christopher Morrow wrote:
hasn't this been the case for ~10 yrs now?
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Max Tulyev <maxtul@netassist.ua> wrote:
Hi All,
we got an issue today that announces from Cogent don't reach Hurricane Electric. HE support said that's a feature, not a bug.
So we have splitted Internet again?
I have to change at least one of my uplinks because of it, which one is better to drop, HE or Cogent?
Might I suggest cake pleas? On Tuesday, December 1, 2015, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
hasn't this been the case for ~10 yrs now?
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Max Tulyev <maxtul@netassist.ua <javascript:;>> wrote:
Hi All,
we got an issue today that announces from Cogent don't reach Hurricane Electric. HE support said that's a feature, not a bug.
So we have splitted Internet again?
I have to change at least one of my uplinks because of it, which one is better to drop, HE or Cogent?
On Tue Dec 1 14:39:14 2015, Andrew Kirch wrote:
Might I suggest cake pleas?
You mean http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Hurricane-Cake... ? -- Alarig
That cake will haunt NANOG until the end of time. On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Alarig Le Lay <alarig@swordarmor.fr> wrote:
On Tue Dec 1 14:39:14 2015, Andrew Kirch wrote:
Might I suggest cake pleas?
You mean
http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Hurricane-Cake... ?
-- Alarig
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 7:34 PM, Jeff Walter <jwalter@weebly.com> wrote:
That cake will haunt NANOG until the end of time.
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Alarig Le Lay <alarig@swordarmor.fr> wrote:
On Tue Dec 1 14:39:14 2015, Andrew Kirch wrote:
Might I suggest cake pleas?
You mean
http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Hurricane-Cake... ?
i mean "Different companies have different personalities, and the vast majority work through their relationships fine in the interest of the public and the industry. But there are always a few companies that like to act out on the public stage to achieve their business objectives." --Mike Leber, 6/29/15 Telecom Ramblings along with the bad spelling, we have short memories. peering is about mutual benefits. when benefits aren't there peering doesn't happen. going to nanog and yelling about peering by saying that you're a victim isn't a mutual benefit last i checked. their lack of peering doesn't demand another moment of our attention. choose wisely. Drive slow, Paul WALL
On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 09:23:08PM +0200, Max Tulyev wrote:
we got an issue today that announces from Cogent don't reach Hurricane Electric. HE support said that's a feature, not a bug.
So we have splitted Internet again?
Was there ever an adjacency between 6939 and 174 in the IPv6 DFZ? Maybe bgpmon or dyn can comment on information collected over the last few years.
I have to change at least one of my uplinks because of it, which one is better to drop, HE or Cogent?
I recommend You base your decision on metrics relevant to your business, such as network performance, positive/negative experiences with their NOC, support from your account manager, pricing, how easy it was to reach them (local tail needed or not), etc. Kind regards, Job
On Dec 1, 2015, at 1:23 PM, Max Tulyev <maxtul@netassist.ua> wrote:
Hi All,
we got an issue today that announces from Cogent don't reach Hurricane Electric. HE support said that's a feature, not a bug.
So we have splitted Internet again?
I have to change at least one of my uplinks because of it, which one is better to drop, HE or Cogent?
There is another option, instead of choosing just one - perhaps establish a tunnel to HE from a L3 device that can do the tunneling in hardware? You can get a HE tunnel for free, and they will speak BGP to you. Alternatively, if you are on any IXes where HE is present - they will not only peer with you for v6, but announce a full table if you want it.
Wouldn't this be a Net Neutrality issue now or would it fall on HE for not willing to buy transit to Cogent IPv6? On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Ryan Rawdon <ryan@u13.net> wrote:
On Dec 1, 2015, at 1:23 PM, Max Tulyev <maxtul@netassist.ua> wrote:
Hi All,
we got an issue today that announces from Cogent don't reach Hurricane Electric. HE support said that's a feature, not a bug.
So we have splitted Internet again?
I have to change at least one of my uplinks because of it, which one is better to drop, HE or Cogent?
There is another option, instead of choosing just one - perhaps establish a tunnel to HE from a L3 device that can do the tunneling in hardware? You can get a HE tunnel for free, and they will speak BGP to you.
Alternatively, if you are on any IXes where HE is present - they will not only peer with you for v6, but announce a full table if you want it.
On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Jared Geiger <jared@compuwizz.net> wrote:
Wouldn't this be a Net Neutrality issue now or would it fall on HE for not willing to buy transit to Cogent IPv6?
Wouldn't it fall on Cogent for being unwilling to buy transit from HE? HE is the IPv6 leader in the game. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
As funny as that would be, it would never happen. Cogent thinks they're the biggest. HE is the biggest (last I checked). HE wants to peer. Cogent wants HE to pay for transit. Cake reference. Still partitioned. How do you get them connected? I hate to say it, but it would take a major shift within Cogent. In the meantime your best option to see the whole IPv6 internet is to pay Cogent and to get free v6 transit with HE over an exchange or tunnel. On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 12:51 PM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Jared Geiger <jared@compuwizz.net> wrote:
Wouldn't this be a Net Neutrality issue now or would it fall on HE for not willing to buy transit to Cogent IPv6?
Wouldn't it fall on Cogent for being unwilling to buy transit from HE? HE is the IPv6 leader in the game.
Regards, Bill Herrin
-- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
On Dec 2, 2015, at 8:38 PM, Ryan Rawdon <ryan@u13.net> wrote:
On Dec 1, 2015, at 1:23 PM, Max Tulyev <maxtul@netassist.ua> wrote:
Hi All,
we got an issue today that announces from Cogent don't reach Hurricane Electric. HE support said that's a feature, not a bug.
So we have splitted Internet again?
I have to change at least one of my uplinks because of it, which one is better to drop, HE or Cogent?
There is another option, instead of choosing just one - perhaps establish a tunnel to HE from a L3 device that can do the tunneling in hardware? You can get a HE tunnel for free, and they will speak BGP to you.
Alternatively, if you are on any IXes where HE is present - they will not only peer with you for v6, but announce a full table if you want it.
Looking at the most recent IPv6 data available at CAIDA you can see the customer cone size: http://as-rank.caida.org/?data-selected-id=15 Be careful as the tool seems fragile when switching from the 2014-09-01 IPv6 dataset and trying to sort by options, it seems to switch back to IPv4 silently. Prefixes and/or AS’es in customer cone are likely the best measure, but even there Cogent is 2x HE.net. The only place where he.net leads is the transit degree with is likely distorted because of what you mention above, full tables, etc. I find this data interesting and wish there was something more recent than 2014-09-01 to test with. Perhaps I could do something with all these atlas credits I have. (or someone could use them for me). - Jared
On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> wrote:
Looking at the most recent IPv6 data available at CAIDA you can see the customer cone size:
http://as-rank.caida.org/?data-selected-id=15
Be careful as the tool seems fragile when switching from the 2014-09-01 IPv6 dataset and trying to sort by options, it seems to switch back to IPv4 silently.
Prefixes and/or AS’es in customer cone are likely the best measure, but even there Cogent is 2x HE.net. The only place where he.net leads is the transit degree with is likely distorted because of what you mention above, full tables, etc.
I find this data interesting and wish there was something more recent than 2014-09-01 to test with. Perhaps I could do something with all these atlas credits I have. (or someone could use them for me).
- Jared
Note their analysis is horribly flawed, as it suffers from a 32-bit limitation for counting IPv6 addresses. I'd love to see them fix their code and then re-run the analysis. Matt
On Dec 2, 2015, at 17:38 , Ryan Rawdon <ryan@u13.net> wrote:
On Dec 1, 2015, at 1:23 PM, Max Tulyev <maxtul@netassist.ua> wrote:
Hi All,
we got an issue today that announces from Cogent don't reach Hurricane Electric. HE support said that's a feature, not a bug.
So we have splitted Internet again?
I have to change at least one of my uplinks because of it, which one is better to drop, HE or Cogent?
There is another option, instead of choosing just one - perhaps establish a tunnel to HE from a L3 device that can do the tunneling in hardware? You can get a HE tunnel for free, and they will speak BGP to you.
Alternatively, if you are on any IXes where HE is present - they will not only peer with you for v6, but announce a full table if you want it.
Where the definition of Full Table is everything that isn’t exclusively behind Cogent. Owen
On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 11:49 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
Where the definition of Full Table is everything that isn’t exclusively behind Cogent.
I thought that was a full table in IPv4 as well? -Bill -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
On Dec 6, 2015, at 2:56 AM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 11:49 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
Where the definition of Full Table is everything that isn’t exclusively behind Cogent.
I thought that was a full table in IPv4 as well?
The disjoint is IPv4 they can reach each other, but the relationships that exist for IPv4 aren’t all dual-stacked with congruent policies. As with all things, I suspect this has more to do with “market optics” vs what’s best for the network(s) involved. my take: I don’t think there are a lot of actual missing bits as a result of this. - Jared
On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 4:08 AM, Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> wrote:
On Dec 6, 2015, at 2:56 AM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote: On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 11:49 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
Where the definition of Full Table is everything that isn’t exclusively behind Cogent. I thought that was a full table in IPv4 as well?
The disjoint is IPv4 they can reach each other, but the relationships that exist for IPv4 aren’t all dual-stacked with congruent policies.
Hi Jared, I was being sarcastic. I would never accept Cogent as my sole service provider because they have a history of getting in to arguments which leave their customers with only a partial view of the Internet. In IPv6 -AND- IPv4. As far as I'm concerned, anyone exclusively on Cogent isn't fully on the Internet and it's not my problem to get them there. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
On 1 December 2015 at 20:23, Max Tulyev <maxtul@netassist.ua> wrote:
Hi All,
we got an issue today that announces from Cogent don't reach Hurricane Electric. HE support said that's a feature, not a bug.
So we have splitted Internet again?
I have to change at least one of my uplinks because of it, which one is better to drop, HE or Cogent?
Question: Why would you have to drop one of them? You have no problem if you have both. Even in the case of a link failure to one of them, you will likely not see a big impact since everyone else also keeps multiple transits. You will only have trouble with people that are single homed Cogent or HE, in which case it is more them having a problem than you. Regards, Baldur
Or, if you feel that Cogent's stubborn insistence on partitioning the global v6 internet shouldn't be rewarded with money, pay someone *other* than cogent for IPv6 transit and also connect to HE.net; that way you still have access to cogent routes, but you also send a subtle economic nudge that says "hey cogent-- trying to get into the tier 1 club by partitioning the internet isn't a good path for long-term sucess". Note that this is purely my own opinion, not necessarily that of my employer, my friends, my family, or even my cat. I asked my cat about cogent IPv6, and all I got was a ghostly hairball as a reply[0]. Matt [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kEME0CxmtY On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1 December 2015 at 20:23, Max Tulyev <maxtul@netassist.ua> wrote:
Hi All,
we got an issue today that announces from Cogent don't reach Hurricane Electric. HE support said that's a feature, not a bug.
So we have splitted Internet again?
I have to change at least one of my uplinks because of it, which one is better to drop, HE or Cogent?
Question: Why would you have to drop one of them? You have no problem if you have both.
Even in the case of a link failure to one of them, you will likely not see a big impact since everyone else also keeps multiple transits. You will only have trouble with people that are single homed Cogent or HE, in which case it is more them having a problem than you.
Regards,
Baldur
On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 04:58:08PM -0800, Matthew Petach wrote:
Or, if you feel that Cogent's stubborn insistence on partitioning the global v6 internet shouldn't be rewarded with money, pay someone *other* than cogent for IPv6 transit and also connect to HE.net; that way you still have access to cogent routes, but you also send a subtle economic nudge that says "hey cogent-- trying to get into the tier 1 club by partitioning the internet isn't a good path for long-term sucess".
Sadly, anyone you pay for transit to Cogent routes is going to be giving Cogent their cut, so it's not a perfect signal to Cogent that we'd prefer to have one IPv6ternet rather than two. At the very least, configure the routers to that any routes you learn via HE are preferenced, and announce your routes as preferring HE, so that Cogent gets as little of the traffic as possible. - Matt
On Dec 3, 2015, at 7:58 PM, Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com> wrote:
Or, if you feel that Cogent's stubborn insistence on partitioning the global v6 internet shouldn't be rewarded with money, pay someone *other* than cogent for IPv6 transit and also connect to HE.net; that way you still have access to cogent routes, but you also send a subtle economic nudge that says "hey cogent-- trying to get into the tier 1 club by partitioning the internet isn't a good path for long-term sucess".
Note that this is purely my own opinion, not necessarily that of my employer, my friends, my family, or even my cat. I asked my cat about cogent IPv6, and all I got was a ghostly hairball as a reply[0].
I would say that if you buy transit for IPv4, you should have congruent relationship with IPv6 as well. A network that does one and not the other is clearly obvious to a skilled engineer. Partitioning networks is bad, and I’d like to see this resolved myself. - Jared
On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 5:43 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
Or, if you feel that Cogent's stubborn insistence on partitioning the global v6 internet
if A does not peer with B, then for all A and B they are evil partitioners?
can we lower the rhetoric?
randy
I thought we already had this conversation a few years ago, but my memory is short, so we can have it again. ^_^; No, it's not an issue of A not peering with B, it's A selling "internet transit" for a known subset of the internet rather than the whole kit and kaboodle. I rather think that if you're going to put a sign out saying "we sell internet transit", it *is* incumbent on you to make a best effort to ensure you have as complete a copy of the full routing table as possible; otherwise, it's potentially a fraudulent claim. At least, that's what it would be in any other industry if you sold something under a particular name while knowing the whole time it didn't fit the definition of the product. I know in the service station industry, I'd get in a lot of trouble if I sold "premium unleaded gasoline" that was really just the same as the "regular unleaded" with a different label. It's fortunate that we're not a regulated industry, so there's nobody checking up on us to make sure that if we sell "internet transit", it's not really "internet transit, minus level3, sprint, ATT, and a bunch of other networks that won't get your prefixes from me". It all boils down to 'caveat emptor' -- not all uses of the word "internet transit" mean the same thing--check carefully when buying, and make sure you make informed decisions. Matt (now with 50% less rhetoric!)
On 5 December 2015 at 02:43, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
Or, if you feel that Cogent's stubborn insistence on partitioning the global v6 internet
if A does not peer with B, then for all A and B they are evil partitioners?
can we lower the rhetoric?
They both loses on this. In fact anyone claiming tier 1 status loses here, because this illustrates why you can never be single homed on a tier 1 network. These guys simply do not have the full internet. Regards, Baldur
It is worth noting that HE indeed provides the full view, it's the other side that has an issue. (Since HE isn't really a tier 1, their transit relationships with Telia and other carriers "save" them) Cogent -> HE dies with unreachable on the first hop though, and that's an issue for Cogent customers. On 12/5/2015 11:09 AM, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
On 5 December 2015 at 02:43, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
Or, if you feel that Cogent's stubborn insistence on partitioning the global v6 internet if A does not peer with B, then for all A and B they are evil partitioners?
can we lower the rhetoric?
They both loses on this. In fact anyone claiming tier 1 status loses here, because this illustrates why you can never be single homed on a tier 1 network. These guys simply do not have the full internet.
Regards,
Baldur
Is "tier" even a thing anymore? On Dec 4, 2015 8:46 PM, "Paul S." <contact@winterei.se> wrote:
It is worth noting that HE indeed provides the full view, it's the other side that has an issue.
(Since HE isn't really a tier 1, their transit relationships with Telia and other carriers "save" them)
Cogent -> HE dies with unreachable on the first hop though, and that's an issue for Cogent customers.
On 12/5/2015 11:09 AM, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
On 5 December 2015 at 02:43, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
Or, if you feel that Cogent's stubborn insistence on partitioning the
global v6 internet
if A does not peer with B, then for all A and B they are evil partitioners?
can we lower the rhetoric?
They both loses on this. In fact anyone claiming tier 1 status loses here, because this illustrates why you can never be single homed on a tier 1 network. These guys simply do not have the full internet.
Regards,
Baldur
Whoops, spoke too soon. While HE indeed seems to use the transits to reach Cogent, they only do this over v4. IPv6 packets are indeed dropped on the first border. Sorry for the noise. core1.fmt1.he.net> traceroute ipv6 2001:550:2:d::a:2 numericTarget 2001:550:2:d::a:2 Hop Start 1 Hop End 30 Hop Packet 1 Packet 2 Packet 3 Hostname 1 * * * ? 2 * * * ? 3 * * * ? 4 * * * ? IP: Errno(8) Trace Route Failed, no response from target node. On 12/5/2015 11:43 AM, Paul S. wrote:
It is worth noting that HE indeed provides the full view, it's the other side that has an issue.
(Since HE isn't really a tier 1, their transit relationships with Telia and other carriers "save" them)
Cogent -> HE dies with unreachable on the first hop though, and that's an issue for Cogent customers.
On 12/5/2015 11:09 AM, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
On 5 December 2015 at 02:43, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
Or, if you feel that Cogent's stubborn insistence on partitioning the global v6 internet if A does not peer with B, then for all A and B they are evil partitioners?
can we lower the rhetoric?
They both loses on this. In fact anyone claiming tier 1 status loses here, because this illustrates why you can never be single homed on a tier 1 network. These guys simply do not have the full internet.
Regards,
Baldur
On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 8:43 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
Or, if you feel that Cogent's stubborn insistence on partitioning the global v6 internet
if A does not peer with B, then for all A and B they are evil partitioners?
can we lower the rhetoric?
It's Cogent. Seriously. They earned their disrespect. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
On Dec 4, 2015, at 17:43 , Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
Or, if you feel that Cogent's stubborn insistence on partitioning the global v6 internet
if A does not peer with B, then for all A and B they are evil partitioners?
can we lower the rhetoric?
randy
Does that remain true for values of A where A is willing to peer with B, but B refuses to peer with A? Owen
On 12/5/15 9:37 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Dec 4, 2015, at 17:43 , Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
Or, if you feel that Cogent's stubborn insistence on partitioning the global v6 internet
if A does not peer with B, then for all A and B they are evil partitioners?
can we lower the rhetoric?
randy
Does that remain true for values of A where A is willing to peer with B, but B refuses to peer with A?
These are (mostly) reasonable business decisions engaged by (mostly) reasonable actors. both providers have tools available to them to address the partition unilaterally as one of them does in ipv4 where they so inclined. Neither provider has significant numbers of single homed eyeballs marooned behind them which would be bad.
Owen
I think what’s stopping this from being a bigger issue is that neither network has many (if any) single-homed customers that don’t connect on IPv4, which as mentioned previously isn’t partitioned. If there were many IPv6 only eyeballs single-homed behind each network then it would be a bigger issue. Regards, Marty Strong -------------------------------------- CloudFlare - AS13335 Network Engineer marty@cloudflare.com +44 7584 906 055 smartflare (Skype) http://www.peeringdb.com/view.php?asn=13335
On 6 Dec 2015, at 18:38, joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> wrote:
On 12/5/15 9:37 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Dec 4, 2015, at 17:43 , Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
Or, if you feel that Cogent's stubborn insistence on partitioning the global v6 internet
if A does not peer with B, then for all A and B they are evil partitioners?
can we lower the rhetoric?
randy
Does that remain true for values of A where A is willing to peer with B, but B refuses to peer with A?
These are (mostly) reasonable business decisions engaged by (mostly) reasonable actors. both providers have tools available to them to address the partition unilaterally as one of them does in ipv4 where they so inclined.
Neither provider has significant numbers of single homed eyeballs marooned behind them which would be bad.
Owen
On 04.12.15 01:19, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
On 1 December 2015 at 20:23, Max Tulyev <maxtul@netassist.ua> wrote:
I have to change at least one of my uplinks because of it, which one is better to drop, HE or Cogent?
Question: Why would you have to drop one of them? You have no problem if you have both.
Because of money, isn't it? I don't want to pay twice!
Even in the case of a link failure to one of them, you will likely not see a big impact since everyone else also keeps multiple transits. You will only have trouble with people that are single homed Cogent or HE, in which case it is more them having a problem than you.
As I fully implement IPv6 on my net, I got a HUGE impact already. That's the problem. So as this is not a bug, but a long time story - I relized for me as a cutomer connectivity from both Hurricane Electric and Cogent is a crap. So people should avoid both, and buy for example from Level3 and NTT, which do not have such problem and do not sell me partial connectivity without any warning before signing the contract. I'm just a IP transit customer, and I don't give a something for that wars who is the real Tier1. I just want a working service for my money instead of answering a hundreds calls from my subscribers!
On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Max Tulyev <maxtul@netassist.ua> wrote:
On 04.12.15 01:19, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
On 1 December 2015 at 20:23, Max Tulyev <maxtul@netassist.ua> wrote:
I have to change at least one of my uplinks because of it, which one is better to drop, HE or Cogent?
Question: Why would you have to drop one of them? You have no problem if you have both.
Because of money, isn't it? I don't want to pay twice!
Completely makes sense--you want to get the most value possible for the dollars you spend, which means you want to choose upstream providers that give you the most complete view of the internet possible.
So as this is not a bug, but a long time story - I relized for me as a cutomer connectivity from both Hurricane Electric and Cogent is a crap. So people should avoid both, and buy for example from Level3 and NTT, which do not have such problem and do not sell me partial connectivity without any warning before signing the contract.
I'm just a IP transit customer, and I don't give a something for that wars who is the real Tier1. I just want a working service for my money instead of answering a hundreds calls from my subscribers!
So, for you, the choice is going to come down to a comparison of how much each provider charges vs how much of a headache they're creating for you in terms of partial reachability problems. While bigger entities like Level 3 and NTT will give you fewer reachability headaches, they're also likely to charge more; and you don't want to put all your eggs in one basket. So, hypothetically speaking, if Level3 and NTT both charge $2/mb/s/month, and Cogent and HE charge $0.75/mb/s/month, you might find that you get a more cost-effective blend by getting 3 circuits, one each from Level3 OR NTT, and Cogent, and HE, for a total cost of $2+$0.75+$0.75, or $3.50, instead of the other option of buying two circuits, one each from Level3 and NTT, which would be $2+$2, or $4. Yes, I realize this is completely contrived hypothetical set of prices, but the point is only you have the knowledge of how much each provider is charging you; take that information, do a few searches in your favorite search engine for "$PROVIDER peering dispute", and see which providers have the best and worst histories as far as getting into peering disputes, and then choose accordingly. It would be nice if there were a rating system for ISPs that would make it easier for smaller companies to know if they were buying from an "A" rated ISP vs a "C" or "D" rated ISP, somewhat like restaurants that have to post their department of health scores visibly. However, without any overseeing entity that would provide such a rating service, for now it's up to each buyer to do their own research to decide which ISPs are safer to work with, and which ones are riskier. Best of luck making the right choices! Thanks! Matt
On 7 December 2015 at 01:54, Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com> wrote:
So, hypothetically speaking, if Level3 and NTT both charge $2/mb/s/month, and Cogent and HE charge $0.75/mb/s/month, you might find that you get a more cost-effective blend by getting 3 circuits, one each from Level3 OR NTT, and Cogent, and HE, for a total cost of $2+$0.75+$0.75, or $3.50, instead of the other option of buying two circuits, one each from Level3 and NTT, which would be $2+$2, or $4.
Or you could buy from some so called "tier 2" or "tier 3" providers instead. Say the world has 6 tier 1 providers called A, B, C, D, E and F. Ideally you would get the best connectivity (the most direct routes) by buying from two tier 2, one which has A, B and C as uplink and the other has D, E and F. In my experience the connectivity between tier 1 providers can be really bad. If I use only my Cogent transit, some traffic will go from Europe to New York and back again. The performance is so bad that my customers will start calling me and claim the network is down. Just looking at the routing table will not tell you the full story here. Back to the real world: Cogent is good for dirt cheap transit, HE is good for their massive peering and then you also take in someone local to cover all your bases. Regards, Baldur
On 6 December 2015 at 18:24, Max Tulyev <maxtul@netassist.ua> wrote:
On 04.12.15 01:19, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
On 1 December 2015 at 20:23, Max Tulyev <maxtul@netassist.ua> wrote:
I have to change at least one of my uplinks because of it, which one is better to drop, HE or Cogent?
Question: Why would you have to drop one of them? You have no problem if you have both.
Because of money, isn't it? I don't want to pay twice!
Even in the case of a link failure to one of them, you will likely not see a big impact since everyone else also keeps multiple transits. You will only have trouble with people that are single homed Cogent or HE, in which case it is more them having a problem than you.
As I fully implement IPv6 on my net, I got a HUGE impact already. That's the problem.
So as this is not a bug, but a long time story - I relized for me as a cutomer connectivity from both Hurricane Electric and Cogent is a crap. So people should avoid both, and buy for example from Level3 and NTT, which do not have such problem and do not sell me partial connectivity without any warning before signing the contract.
I agree with your conclusion, however, your premise is not correct — technically, HE is /not/ requiring you to purchase IPv6 from them; in fact, they're rather openly giving away IPv6, including IPv6 transit, away for free. My understanding is that this includes both the tunnels (including BGP) and the on-premise connectivity options. So, feel free to ask for your money back from HE, and try that with Cogent, too! C.
I'm just a IP transit customer, and I don't give a something for that wars who is the real Tier1. I just want a working service for my money instead of answering a hundreds calls from my subscribers!
Admittedly, I may be biased, but even I am not sure in which direction. HE and Cogent have been in a pissing match over peering for a very long time. HE refuses to pay transit (which to me seems reasonable). Cogent refuses to peer with HE or pay transit. (The latter seeming reasonable to me, the former not so much). The dispute is bad for the internet. Paying Cogent would also, IMHO, be bad for the internet. If it were me, I would drop Cogent, let them know why you are dropping them, and find a provider that has transit to both Cogent and HE as a replacement. YMMV. Owen The following may also be of interest from the archives: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CObnXjmDtg
On Dec 1, 2015, at 11:23 , Max Tulyev <maxtul@netassist.ua> wrote:
Hi All,
we got an issue today that announces from Cogent don't reach Hurricane Electric. HE support said that's a feature, not a bug.
So we have splitted Internet again?
I have to change at least one of my uplinks because of it, which one is better to drop, HE or Cogent?
participants (21)
-
Alarig Le Lay -
Andrew Kirch -
Baldur Norddahl -
Christopher Morrow -
Constantine A. Murenin -
Jared Geiger -
Jared Mauch -
Jeff Walter -
Job Snijders -
joel jaeggli -
Josh Reynolds -
Marty Strong -
Matt Palmer -
Matthew Petach -
Max Tulyev -
Owen DeLong -
Paul S. -
Paul WALL -
Randy Bush -
Ryan Rawdon -
William Herrin