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. -- TTFN, patrick > 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 <r...@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras > GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC) >
