Peering Disputes Migrate To IPv6 111
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."
Re:ob. (Score:4, Insightful)
Transition going well... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I wouldn't peer with HE either.... (Score:2, Insightful)
[Hurricane Electric] are the Wal-Mart of bandwidth and offer dirt-cheap prices. [...] how dare they expect to offer the same QoS and not pay for it.
Huh? You meant that there are operators that offer actual QoS for IP traffic? If so, it's an interesting new research result, and I'd like to see the technology.
(More seriously -- unless you can show us that HE's SLA is significantly worse than other operators', I recommend that you shut up. What you're doing is called uninformed FUD.)
Re:Go peer with google instead (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I wouldn't peer with HE either.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I wouldn't peer with HE either.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Ah, so you're slandering them for competitive reasons, then.
Re:Oh great, Cogent is at it again (Score:3, Insightful)
That is true and quite silly all at once. Given network A and B with where B is full of servers that want to serve content (and ads of course) and A is full of clients that want to view that content, both networks have been paid by their customers to complete those transactions and both are failing to honor their agreements if they don't do it.
On one hand, I see what you mean about it always being Cogent involved, but at the same time they undercut prices on all of the networks that have de-peered them, so it could be that there are ulterior motives.
Re:Seen before with Cogent/Sprint (Score:4, Insightful)
The analogy doesn't work though, because no matter how much traffic there is or how unbalanced it may be, every last bit of it represents a peer on one network that has paid for connectivity with the other network. Every meg Cogent shoveled through the peering point only went there because a customer of the other network wanted his porn from a server on Cogent's network.
I won't say that Cogent is in any way, shape or form perfect. They could stand to improve a LOT in many areas. But then, the same is true of every transit provider.
Re:Oh great, Cogent is at it again (Score:1, Insightful)
What is the difference between traffic you send me and traffic I request from you? Cogent gets into peering issues because they host a lot of content. Content that users request. I'm a Sprint customer and I pay Sprint to get my to Cogent content. Why should Cogent have to pay Sprint as well?
Re:Oh great, Cogent is at it again (Score:1, Insightful)
I've been following the Cogentco peering issues for quite some time because we use Cogentco in a few of our locations for internet access or as a VPN backup to our MPLS. I think the other carriers are ganging up and using FUD with Cogent because they can not compete with Cogentco. Other then the occasional peering issues which we can typically get around with some changes because we have multiple carriers in multiple locations, our numbers show our Cogentco service has been at or above average for reliability and responsiveness compared to all of our other carriers we use for the last four years. For connections between two of our Cogentco connected locations, it is even better. I'm sure the carriers in dispute with Cogent can claim what ever reasons they like about peering but they could also all be explained with the price and competition that Cogent has and the fact they can not compete with it and it is in their best interest to make Cogent look bad. If we use Sprint in one office and Cogentco in another, we are a customer of each and we use that argument when we open tickets with each of them when the peering gets disrupted between them.