On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 2:18 AM, Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote:
HE doesn't need to buy IPv6 transit, because they are in effect transit-free
(except to Cogent).
It's not just a Cogent issue.
They also chose not to buy from Level3 or buy those routes through a
Level3 peer:
From HE's
On Jun 8, 2011, at 1:10 PM, Ken Chase wrote:
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 03:05:05PM -0500, Richard A Steenbergen said:
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
On Jun 8, 2011, at 1:05 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 07:48:42PM +, 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
On (2011-06-09 00:55 -0700), Owen DeLong wrote:
To be an IPv6 TIer 1, one has to peer with other IPv6 Tier 1s. HE has
aggressively tried to improve the situation through promiscuous peering
in every way possible. If you are interested in peering with HE and
you have a presence at any of the
Composed on a virtual keyboard, please forgive typos.
On Jun 9, 2011, at 17:39, Saku Ytti s...@ytti.fi wrote:
On (2011-06-09 00:55 -0700), Owen DeLong wrote:
To be an IPv6 TIer 1, one has to peer with other IPv6 Tier 1s. HE has
aggressively tried to improve the situation through
On 2011-Jun-09 10:39, Saku Ytti wrote:
On (2011-06-09 00:55 -0700), Owen DeLong wrote:
To be an IPv6 TIer 1, one has to peer with other IPv6 Tier 1s. HE has
aggressively tried to improve the situation through promiscuous peering
in every way possible. If you are interested in peering with HE
On (2011-06-09 18:03 +0900), Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Even though HE gives away free transit now, Owen said nothing about free
transit.
Yes there might be that some networks are unable physically to connect to HE.
But I'm sure within time HE will have global presence to reach all networks
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 3:39 AM, Saku Ytti s...@ytti.fi wrote:
On (2011-06-09 00:55 -0700), Owen DeLong wrote:
I look forward for IPv4 to go away, as in future I can have full free
connectivity through HE to every other shop who all have full free
connectivity
to HE. Something went terribly
Support Services
Office: 314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net
LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training - Author of Learn RouterOS
-Original Message-
From: Jimmy Hess [mailto:mysi...@gmail.com]
Sent: June 09, 2011 7:56 AM
To: Saku Ytti
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Cogent HE
On Thu
On Jun 9, 2011, at 2:06 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On 2011-Jun-09 10:39, Saku Ytti wrote:
On (2011-06-09 00:55 -0700), Owen DeLong wrote:
To be an IPv6 TIer 1, one has to peer with other IPv6 Tier 1s. HE has
aggressively tried to improve the situation through promiscuous peering
in every
, 2011 7:56 AM
To: Saku Ytti
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Cogent HE
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 3:39 AM, Saku Ytti s...@ytti.fi wrote:
On (2011-06-09 00:55 -0700), Owen DeLong wrote:
I look forward for IPv4 to go away, as in future I can have full free
connectivity through HE to every
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Ken Chase k...@sizone.org wrote:
So we have to buy from BOTH HE and Cogent?! Sounds like market fixing to me!
:/
Guess if we do we can advertise that on our webpage... now with BOTH halves
of the ipv6 internets!
Or just buy from someone who have sessions with
On 6/9/11 3:06 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
You could, today, setup a IPv6 over IPv4 tunnel and HE will pay for the
IPv4 transit at the cost of a little smaller lower MTU;)
Just need to find folks on the other side to terminate those tunnels who
find also that using a free service is a good idea
On 6/9/11 7:37 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I was an HE Tunnel users long before I joined the company. In my experience,
our free tunnel service is quite reliable and provides excellent connectivity.
HE has been happily exchanging BGP and routing my /48 for several
years. The high quality of this
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 12:55:44AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
Respectfully, RAS, I disagree. I think there's a big difference
between being utterly unwilling to resolve the situation by peering
and merely refusing to purchase transit to a network that appears to
offer little or no value to
RAS wrote:
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 12:55:44AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
Respectfully, RAS, I disagree. I think there's a big difference
between being utterly unwilling to resolve the situation by peering
and merely refusing to purchase transit to a network that appears to
offer little or no
On 06/09/2011 06:21 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 12:55:44AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
Respectfully, RAS, I disagree. I think there's a big difference
between being utterly unwilling to resolve the situation by peering
and merely refusing to purchase transit to a
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 07:06:29PM -0400, Brian Dickson wrote:
So, long history short, there were in fact peering disputes that had
one side saying, hey, we want to peer and the other side saying you
don't have enough traffic, or your ratio is too imbalanced, or
you're my customer -
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
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 06:26:01PM -0500, Jimmy Hess 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...
You're confused, read again. :)
I would consider them both
transit from Cogent,
but there is a requirement that HE buy transit from *SOMEONE* if they
are not a transit free network.
HE doesn't need to buy IPv6 transit, because they are in effect transit-free
(except to Cogent).
HE has deliberately chosen NOT to use transit for their IPv6 routes, in
order
On 2011-Jun-10 02:18, Jimmy Hess wrote:
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 6:49 PM, Richard A Steenbergen r...@e-gerbil.net
wrote:
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 06:26:01PM -0500, Jimmy Hess wrote:
You seem to have missed it, so I will say again: IPv6 is not IPv4.
First you seem to have missed the point
Just noted that cogent does not have a IPv6 route to any subnet in HE,
and HE does not have any routes to Cogent!
Looks like we have different Global IPv6 tables? Or does Cogent just
NOT peer IPv6 peer with anyone else!
Dennis
On 6/8/2011 12:43, Dennis Burgess wrote:
Just noted that cogent does not have a IPv6 route to any subnet in HE,
and HE does not have any routes to Cogent!
Looks like we have different Global IPv6 tables? Or does Cogent just
NOT peer IPv6 peer with anyone else!
Cogent and HE don't
@nanog.org
Subject: Cogent HE
Sent: Jun 8, 2011 1:43 PM
Just noted that cogent does not have a IPv6 route to any subnet in HE,
and HE does not have any routes to Cogent!
Looks like we have different Global IPv6 tables? Or does Cogent just
NOT peer IPv6 peer with anyone else!
Dennis
From: Dennis Burgess dmburg...@linktechs.net
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 3:45 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Cogent HE
Just noted that cogent does not have a IPv6 route to any subnet in HE,
and HE does not have any routes to Cogent!
Looks like we have different Global
On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 14:43:23 -0500, Dennis Burgess
dmburg...@linktechs.net wrote:
Just noted that cogent does not have a IPv6 route to any subnet in HE,
and HE does not have any routes to Cogent!
Looks like we have different Global IPv6 tables? Or does Cogent just
NOT peer IPv6 peer with
cogent vs. someone else.
Brielle
--Original Message--
From: Dennis Burgess
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Cogent HE
Sent: Jun 8, 2011 1:43 PM
Just noted that cogent does not have a IPv6 route to any subnet in HE,
and HE does not have any routes to Cogent!
Looks like we have
Has been going on for a long while now. HE even made a cake for Cogent
(IIRC), to no avail.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/77519640@N00/4031195041/
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 08:02:14PM +, Nathan Eisenberg said:
Has been going on for a long while now. HE even made a cake for Cogent
(IIRC), to no avail.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/77519640@N00/4031195041/
ObMeme[tm]: cake was a lie?
/kc
--
Ken Chase - k...@heavycomputing.ca
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 03:05:05PM -0500, Richard A Steenbergen said:
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
On 6/8/2011 3:05 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
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
cents worth...
-p
-Original Message-
From: Richard A Steenbergen [mailto:r...@e-gerbil.net]
Sent: June-08-11 4:05 PM
To: Brielle Bruns
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Cogent HE
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 07:48:42PM +, Brielle Bruns wrote:
Has been going on for a long while now. HE
On Jun 8, 2011, at 4:10 PM, Ken Chase wrote:
So we have to buy from BOTH HE and Cogent?! Sounds like market fixing to me!
:/
Guess if we do we can advertise that on our webpage... now with BOTH halves
of the ipv6 internets!
Or neither. There are other networks that carry a full IPv6
on
peering.
-p
-Original Message-
From: Ken Chase [mailto:k...@sizone.org]
Sent: June-08-11 4:10 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Cogent HE
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 03:05:05PM -0500, Richard A Steenbergen said:
global reachability, in the hopes that it will strengthen
On 6/8/2011 3:10 PM, Ken Chase wrote:
So we have to buy from BOTH HE and Cogent?! Sounds like market fixing to me! :/
Guess if we do we can advertise that on our webpage... now with BOTH halves
of the ipv6 internets!
No, you buy from the provider who doesn't get in disputes and peers with
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Paul Stewart p...@paulstewart.org wrote:
Or peer with HE and buy transit from Cogent (or someone on Cogent's friendly
list) - this is where I think their strategy is going to go after a while
with a lot of folks (if they have the option - that's the key). HE
5990 prefixes
Hope this helps a bit ;)
-p
-Original Message-
From: jayha...@gmail.com [mailto:jayha...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Jay Hanke
Sent: June-08-11 4:47 PM
To: Paul Stewart
Cc: Ken Chase; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Cogent HE
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Paul Stewart p
On Jun 8, 2011, at 4:05 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 07:48:42PM +, 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
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 06:39:02PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
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.
I'm ready, willing, and lets say for the purposes of this discussion
begging to peer
On Jun 8, 2011, at 7:05 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 06:39:02PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
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.
I'm ready, willing, and lets
Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 06:39:02PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
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.
I'm ready, willing, and lets say for the purposes of this
On Jun 8, 2011, at 9:18 PM, Kevin Loch wrote:
Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 06:39:02PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
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.
I'm ready,
43 matches
Mail list logo
