Cogent & HE

Paul Stewart paul at
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...


-----Original Message-----
From: Richard A Steenbergen [mailto:ras at] 
Sent: June-08-11 4:05 PM
To: Brielle Bruns
Cc: nanog at
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>
GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)

More information about the NANOG mailing list