Cogent & HE
paul at paulstewart.org
Wed Jun 8 20:16:15 UTC 2011
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...
From: Richard A Steenbergen [mailto:ras at e-gerbil.net]
Sent: June-08-11 4:05 PM
To: Brielle Bruns
Cc: nanog at 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 at e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
More information about the NANOG