Cogent & HE

Jimmy Hess mysidia at gmail.com
Thu Jun 9 18:26:01 CDT 2011


On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Richard A Steenbergen <ras at e-gerbil.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 12:55:44AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:

Er, Sorry... you are kind of siding with Cogent and claiming HE responsible
without any logically sound argument explicitly stated that supports
that position...

I would consider them both responsible for the partition, with Cogent
slightly more
complicit,  in that Cogent's expectation of selling HE transit is
slightly less reasonable
than HE's expectation of Cogent peering with HE.

Perhaps Cogent is actually responsible, because Cogent has failed to ask HE
to peer, and Cogent has not sought to buy transit from HE to correct the
network partition.

> HE wants to peer with Cogent, Cogent doesn't want to peer with HE, and
> thus you have an impass and there will be no peering. HE has no problem
> using transit to reach Cogent for IPv4 (I see HE reaching Cogent via

Cogent wants HE to buy IPv6 transit with Cogent,  HE doesn't want to
buy IPv6 transit
with Cogent, and thus you have an impass, and there will be no buying
of transit.

[References to IPv4 networks are irrelevent; the IPv4 internet is not
like the IPv6 internet.]

> 1299/Telia, and Cogent reaching HE via 3549/Global Crossing, both very
> clearly HE transit providers and Cogent peers), but HE has chosen not to
> use transit for the IPv6 traffic. Quite simply, HE feels that they are
> entitled to peer with Cogent for the IPv6 traffic, and has deliberately

Cogent has chosen not to use transit for the IPv6 traffic to HE.
Quite simply, Cogent feels they are entitled to sell transit to HE for the
IPv6 traffic, and has deliberately

> chosen to create this partition to try and force the issue. These are
> *PRECISELY* the same motivations and actions as EVERY OTHER NETWORK who

has ever created a network partition in pursuit of selling transit that
the other party doesn't want to buy, period.

> Again, this isn't necessarily a bad thing if HE thinks it can work to

Again, this isn't necessarily a bad thing if Cogent thinks it can work to

> their long term advantage, but to try and claim that this is anything
> else is completely disingenuous. I understand that you have a PR
> position to take, and you may even have done a good job convincing the


> weak minded who don't understand how peering works that HE is the

weak minded who don't understand how peering works that Cogent is the

> victim, but please don't try to feed a load of bullshit to the rest of
> us. :)


--
-JH




More information about the NANOG mailing list