RE: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering
hello nobody has to peer with some operator for free. they are simply trading internet services. they do not have to believe in FREE (as in price) internet connectivity.. if they peered you, you would decrease the price of the products even more and more... ask cogentco (as174) for paid peering. they will give you nice paid peering or ip transit offer that you can use for both ipv4 and ipv6. for example i would assume they would be OK charging he.net (as6939) 5 usd cent per megabit. you need to understand that you are never going to become tier1 without support from as174. they are currently cheapest and they are okay with dual homing too. think like united nations security council. you must think twice; are you gaining any profit by segmenting world-wide internet? or are you loosing prospective single-homing customers because you lack connectivity to as174 clients? we must think big. asking for a money is OKay while begging for FREE service is not... operating NOC and backbone has some expenses that henet wouldnt understand with their rented links. cogentco bear much more expenses than henet i am not here to insult henet but i honestly think that they are contemptible... just like google's peering decision makers. sir! if you have become big content/eyeball operator, doesnt mean that every operator in the industry have to respect your tier-1 policy and give you their services for free. thats the thing henet and google couldnt understand. think like UNSC and you will understand even USA can not do anything they want in the world, as RU has voting right, too. TL;DR; instead of crying here and begging for free service. send real representatives that could negotiate the money you would pay. bye
Think twice before asking the largest global IPv6 network as measured by prefixes announced to pay Cogent for peering. Also what’s with Telia here? Best regards August Yang On 2022-08-11 09:46, VOLKAN KIRIK wrote:
hello
nobody has to peer with some operator for free. they are simply trading internet services. they do not have to believe in FREE (as in price) internet connectivity.. if they peered you, you would decrease the price of the products even more and more...
ask cogentco (as174) for paid peering. they will give you nice paid peering or ip transit offer that you can use for both ipv4 and ipv6.
for example i would assume they would be OK charging he.net (as6939) 5 usd cent per megabit.
you need to understand that you are never going to become tier1 without support from as174. they are currently cheapest and they are okay with dual homing too. think like united nations security council.
you must think twice; are you gaining any profit by segmenting world-wide internet? or are you loosing prospective single-homing customers because you lack connectivity to as174 clients?
we must think big. asking for a money is OKay while begging for FREE service is not... operating NOC and backbone has some expenses that henet wouldnt understand with their rented links. cogentco bear much more expenses than henet
i am not here to insult henet but i honestly think that they are contemptible... just like google's peering decision makers.
sir! if you have become big content/eyeball operator, doesnt mean that every operator in the industry have to respect your tier-1 policy and give you their services for free. thats the thing henet and google couldnt understand. think like UNSC and you will understand
even USA can not do anything they want in the world, as RU has voting right, too.
TL;DR; instead of crying here and begging for free service. send real representatives that could negotiate the money you would pay.
bye
the companies are here to trade, charge prices for their services.... so why blame cogent for doing what they supposed to be doing? why did hurricane stop BGP tunnel service? and started asking for 500 usd/month for peering? expense of BGP servers? or did they realize ipv6 prefixes does not cost MRC, so their network peers are not serious business. why did Google start charging for cloud gigabytes? if he.net opens free BGP tunnel service back; and also announce full transit routes on IXPs, thats just zero (payback)... if they provide free ip transit to everyone; I would think that cogent should provide free network access to them... if google doesnt charge for traffic in cloud services, then they will be largest in my eyes. if cogent asks for a price, then they have to pay (to become tier1)... simple as that. or they could stay as tier-2 as long as they want. thats called free as in freedom. not as in price. *doesnt level3 pay comcast money for paid-peering?* building eyeball network, enabling fiber connectivity in buildings has much more meaning to me... so honestly i am fine with segmented ipv6 internet. i would just not prefer he.net in my IP transit blend, as i do not have to respect crying beggars.... and i could choose telia+cogent. he.net guys are just charging you money for dumping your traffic in IX Points, that you can do yourself, be eyeball or content network.. btw, losts of useless prefixes... think an asn has 1000 ipv6 prefixes but less than 1 ge traffic, while there are networks exceeding 10ge with just one prefix. ipv6 nat is spreading. just like ipv4 nat. could you analyze traffic amount of ASNs? no. then dont fuckin call them largest or i will kick your monkey ass. i am the god! 11.08.2022 17:01 tarihinde August Yang yazdı:
Think twice before asking the largest global IPv6 network as measured by prefixes announced to pay Cogent for peering.
Also what’s with Telia here?
Best regards August Yang
On 2022-08-11 09:46, VOLKAN KIRIK wrote:
hello
nobody has to peer with some operator for free. they are simply trading internet services. they do not have to believe in FREE (as in price) internet connectivity.. if they peered you, you would decrease the price of the products even more and more...
ask cogentco (as174) for paid peering. they will give you nice paid peering or ip transit offer that you can use for both ipv4 and ipv6.
for example i would assume they would be OK charging he.net (as6939) 5 usd cent per megabit.
you need to understand that you are never going to become tier1 without support from as174. they are currently cheapest and they are okay with dual homing too. think like united nations security council.
you must think twice; are you gaining any profit by segmenting world-wide internet? or are you loosing prospective single-homing customers because you lack connectivity to as174 clients?
we must think big. asking for a money is OKay while begging for FREE service is not... operating NOC and backbone has some expenses that henet wouldnt understand with their rented links. cogentco bear much more expenses than henet
i am not here to insult henet but i honestly think that they are contemptible... just like google's peering decision makers.
sir! if you have become big content/eyeball operator, doesnt mean that every operator in the industry have to respect your tier-1 policy and give you their services for free. thats the thing henet and google couldnt understand. think like UNSC and you will understand
even USA can not do anything they want in the world, as RU has voting right, too.
TL;DR; instead of crying here and begging for free service. send real representatives that could negotiate the money you would pay.
bye
[Removing peering@he.net from this because there's no reason to spam them.] Matt Harris|VP of Infrastructure 816-256-5446|Direct Looking for help? Helpdesk|Email Support We build customized end-to-end technology solutions powered by NetFire Cloud. On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 9:21 AM VOLKAN KIRIK <volkirik@gmail.com> wrote:
the companies are here to trade, charge prices for their services.... so why blame cogent for doing what they supposed to be doing?
why did hurricane stop BGP tunnel service? and started asking for 500 usd/month for peering? expense of BGP servers? or did they realize ipv6 prefixes does not cost MRC, so their network peers are not serious business.
why did Google start charging for cloud gigabytes?
if he.net opens free BGP tunnel service back; and also announce full transit routes on IXPs, thats just zero (payback)...
if they provide free ip transit to everyone; I would think that cogent should provide free network access to them...
if google doesnt charge for traffic in cloud services, then they will be largest in my eyes.
if cogent asks for a price, then they have to pay (to become tier1)... simple as that. or they could stay as tier-2 as long as they want. thats called free as in freedom. not as in price.
In reality "tier 1" vs "tier 2" is about as meaningful as not at all. At the end of the day, building a network has a variety of costs associated with it. Some folks bury fiber, and some folks lease it from them. Some folks peer on route servers at popular exchanges, and others don't. When customers are seeking transit services, they go with a provider who is on-net where it counts for them, can provide the capacity they need at a reasonable price, and often also consider quality of that company's services and reputation.
*doesnt level3 pay comcast money for paid-peering?*
building eyeball network, enabling fiber connectivity in buildings has much more meaning to me...
so honestly i am fine with segmented ipv6 internet. i would just not prefer he.net in my IP transit blend, as i do not have to respect crying beggars.... and i could choose telia+cogent.
Many folks avoid Cogent for a variety of reasons, but in general their policies towards congestion and their marketing practices have, at various times, caused large segments of the community to speak up.
he.net guys are just charging you money for dumping your traffic in IX Points, that you can do yourself, be eyeball or content network..
Can you prove in any meaningful way that this is less optimal or even substantively different from what anyone who provides full table transit service does?
btw, losts of useless prefixes... think an asn has 1000 ipv6 prefixes but less than 1 ge traffic, while there are networks exceeding 10ge with just one prefix. ipv6 nat is spreading. just like ipv4 nat.
What? IPv6 NAT? Please provide data to support the claim that substantial numbers of people are adopting NAT for IPv6?
could you analyze traffic amount of ASNs? no. then dont fuckin call them largest or i will kick your monkey ass.
i am the god!
This is not appropriate behavior for NANOG's mailing list, imho. I'm not sure what makes you think utilizing words like this is going to help your point, but I guarantee it isn't. And for the record, lots of folks here analyze traffic by AS source. - Matt
Once upon a time, Niels Bakker <niels=nanog@bakker.net> said:
* volkirik@gmail.com (VOLKAN KIRIK) [Thu 11 Aug 2022, 15:52 CEST]:
hello
You're replying to a thread from 2009. Please advise.
Maybe they're a Cogent sales rep that, when trying snipe a customer's customer, got push-back on "can I get to Google and HE on IPv6 on your circuit?". -- Chris Adams <cma@cmadams.net>
The reply must've been stuck in Cogent's network for the past 13 years. Chris -----Original Message----- From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+chris.wright=commnetbroadband.com@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Chris Adams Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2022 10:17 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering Once upon a time, Niels Bakker <niels=nanog@bakker.net> said:
* volkirik@gmail.com (VOLKAN KIRIK) [Thu 11 Aug 2022, 15:52 CEST]:
hello
You're replying to a thread from 2009. Please advise.
Maybe they're a Cogent sales rep that, when trying snipe a customer's customer, got push-back on "can I get to Google and HE on IPv6 on your circuit?". -- Chris Adams <cma@cmadams.net>
participants (6)
-
August Yang -
Chris Adams -
Chris Wright -
Matt Harris -
Niels Bakker -
VOLKAN KIRIK