Cogent & HE

Patrick W. Gilmore patrick at
Wed Jun 8 22:39:02 UTC 2011

On Jun 8, 2011, at 4:05 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> 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.

You are incorrect.

Yes, both refuse to buy transit, yes.  But HE is able, willing, and even begging to peer; Cogent is not.   These are not "the same thing".

Also, Cogent does not peer with Google either last time I checked.  There may be others for all I know.  (I don't buy transit from Cogent.)

These are not the only two networks on the v6 Internet who are bifurcated.  There are some in Europe I know of (e.g. Telecom Italia refuses to buy v6 transit and refuses to peer with some networks), and probably others.  The v6 'Net is _not_ ready for prime time, and won't be until there is a financial incentive to stop the stupidity & ego stroking.

The Internet is a business.  Vote with your wallet.  I prefer to buy from people who do things that are in MY best interest.  Giving money to Cogent will not put pressure on them peer with HE & Google & everyone else - just the opposite.

On the flip side, HE is an open peer, even to their own customers, and _gives away_ free v6 transit.  Taking their free transit & complaining that they do not buy capacity to Cogent seems more than silly.  Plus, they are doing that I think is in my best interest as a customer - open peering.  Trying to make them the bad guy here seems counter intuitive.


> 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