Slashdot Mirror
Peering Disputes Migrate To IPv6
1sockchuck writes "As more networks prepare for the transition to IPv6, we're seeing the first peering disputes (sometimes known as 'Internet partitions') involving IPv6 connectivity. The dispute involves Cogent, which has previously been involved in high-profile IPv4 peering spats with Sprint, Level 3 and Telia. Hurricane Electric, which has been an early adopter on IPv6, says Cogent won't peer with it over IPv6. Hurricane has extended an olive branch by baking a cake bearing a message of outreach for Cogent."
I think we all know about the cake...
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
You're a gay dude. You like to top and you like to bottom. You hook up with another dude, but he doesn't want to bottom, he only wants to top. As much as you love dick in your ass, you want to fuck his ass too.
Hope that helps.
As more customers complain about not being able to access certain sites. Business will be lost, and gained and eventually it will eventually stabilize.
THE CAKE IS A LIE!
http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2009/10/22/peering-disputes-migrate-to-ipv6/ Only article I could find with a pic of the cake.
Anyone feel like taking bets on how long it will take until the other Tier 1 ISPs gang up on Cogent and just shut off their peering to Cogent?
Seriously, every one of these conflicts that Cogent gets involved in seems to involve Cogent acting like a bunch of dicks and the only people defending them are their most loyal customers and their employees, why are they even still in business?
/Mikael
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
They are the Wal-Mart of bandwidth and offer dirt-cheap prices. How can they do that and expect to hand-off to more expensive/higher quality(It's Cogent, I know....) networks? People want cheaper and cheaper so a company will eventually come along that caters to that crowd, but how dare they expect to offer the same QoS and not pay for it. Forget peering then throttling the links, Cogent is doing the right thing and not even lighting the fiber.
Website Hosting
If I were to express confidence that there is a perfectly cogent explanation for the behavior of both disputing parties?
I haven't been with it long enough to know how often this kind of stuff goes on, but are Cake Gestures common in IT/IS/CT? Or only after the release of Portal? I recall IE sending a Cake to Firefox... Or Mozilla... Or something... (or vice versa, I don't really remember who congradulated who)...
It almost seems like they would send a cake hoping it'll get news'd somewhere so the public favours whoever is sending the cake.
Or maybe I'm just paranoid. The companion cube will do that to ya, you know.
It seems that the IPv6 transition is going well; we've migrated peering disputes to the lovely next generation protocol.
They've already bought loads of dark fibre, maybe they'd be interested in getting a controlling stake in IPv6 early on.
may have gotten somewhere, had they spelled "please" correctly.
You would.
For those of us who don't have experience with how the big ISPs connect to each other, could someone shed some light on the situation? Does peering involve a physical connection or is it just down to advertising routes? I thought having your routes advertised was a good thing.
The following is copied from a previous Cogent/Spint debacle posting:
Just like what happened with Level(3) a few years ago.
Cogent's history in the ISP market has been absolutely horrible. They came in to town as the Walmart of ISPs, investing in a huge new super-efficient backbone infrastructure doing everything it could to cut costs so they could offer insane deals to their customers. They were running 10Gigabit connections using existing fiber and brand new equipment. They had no 'legacy' hardware.
The hosting industry bit into the Cogent game when they had customers running multimedia sites that needed tons of bandwidth (see: porn) and were tired of paying insane rates per mbps when Cogent had this brand new network with tons of capacity.
But Cogent wasn't in the 'settlement free interconnect' game yet, they were paying for bandwidth themselves. So they went out and purchased a few ISPs that already had settlement free interconnects. The agreements are already in place, so it was a big win situation for them. But these agreements almost always come with the term that you must give as much as you receive (so you need to have a balance between hosted sites and end users.) Cogent didn't have end users, they had servers.
Think of it this way: I am an apartment complex and I have an agreement to mow my neighbor's lawn and in exchange he shovels my sidewalk. It uses approximately the same amount of work. Now imagine my neighbor and all of his agreements are bought by the local golf course. Now the golf course now expects me to mow the entire course because the agreement was that they would shovel and I would mow. Cogent was the golf course, I am an ISP.
Now in my apartment I house a bunch of golfers once I say "screw this, figure out your lawn situation yourself" the course says "ok, well, I guess your tenants are going to have to go without golf." What the hell am I to do now? Mow this golf course to keep my tenants happy?
Finally I come to an agreement, the golf course has to pay me a small amount and I will mow their grass. Everything seems OK, but then the golf course gets in to a bit of trouble and all of a sudden decides "OK, well... he doesn't want his tenants to go without golf so he will probably keep mowing our grass even if we stop paying him." Here we are again, I'm in an impossible situation because I really care about my tenants but man, I just cannot mow an entire golf course all by myself. So I send the golf course warnings after warnings, and after I reach a tipping point I just say "GFY, I'm not mowing your course anymore." I stop mowing it, and the golf course says "IT IS TOTALLY HIS FAULT THAT YOU CANNOT PLAY GOLF!!!"
Right now a lot of ISPs can hit Cogent's old pricing (and Cogent just cannot go any lower than they already are) so a lot if ISPs will just pass on Cogent and go for someone with a better record.
There is a lot more to the story that we don't know about, and since these agreements are generally done under a NDA we will never know for sure what exactly is happening at Cogent.
Just a FYI: I work for a hosting company that has had some dealings with Cogent in the past.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/77519640@N00/4031434206//
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit.
Just re-brand to starkpun.
Political parties are for pussies who can't think for themselves.
The cake was presented during a Peering BoF at the NANOG meeting in Dearborn, MI this week, in reference to a joke on the NANOG mailing list that they had tried everything with Cogent short of baking them a cake.
I was there, and the cake was tasty. :)
I don't care, but don't let that stop you from trying to tell me anyway.
If we are gonna skip numbers, why "6"?, sounds like the devil's work to me. They even use "hex" numbers in the dot notation... (which is 8 groups of 4 hex digits... so why not IPv8?)
I'm just sayin.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Um... that's TFA. It wasn't hard to find. :/
That's ok. I actually clicked on the link the OP posted.
I believe this is a new low. Thank you.
We've all seen people not read the article.
Occasionally people don't read the summary.
But to have someone not read the article, and then provide a link to it after googling is priceless. I almost blew coke all over my computer. I'm still chuckling.
Considering the amount of spam historically coming from HE's network, I can't really blame Cogent for not wanting to peer HE's IPv6 traffic. Fighting spam in IPv6 space in much much more difficult than the current state of affairs.
Was the cake shaped like the internet?