IPv6 internet broken, cogent/hurricane not peering

Matt Harris matt at netfire.net
Thu Aug 11 14:33:20 UTC 2022

[Removing peering at he.net from this because there's no reason to spam them.]

Matt Harris|VP of Infrastructure
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 at 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20220811/59b973dd/attachment.html>

More information about the NANOG mailing list