Cogent & HE

RAS 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 the purchaser or their customers.

Owen, can you please name me one single instance in the history of the
Internet where a peering dispute which lead to network partitioning did
NOT involve one side saying "hey, we're willing to peer" and the other
side saying "no thanks"? Being the one who wants to peer means
absolutely NOTHING here, the real question is which side is causing the
partitioning, and in this case the answer is very clearly HE.

I don't know if Owen can, but I know I can.

Back in the day, when there were many fewer Tier-1's but the number was growing,
there were enough disputes over peering requests that there was a
danger of things
actually getting regulated (e.g. by the dreaded FCC).

As part of one of the many mergers, the biggest player at that time
(AS 701), made their
peering requirements public, *and* honored those requirements.

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 - tough!".
And some of those got resolved by the ratios changing, or the traffic levels
reaching sufficiently high. (I can historically mention AS 6453.)

Some of the other early players didn't play fair, and to my knowledge
still don't. You have
to know someone, or be named "Ren" to get peering with them. (Sorry, Ren. :-))

IMHO, what Cogent are effectively trying to do, is to extort "paid
peering", masquerading as transit.

Personally, I think the global traffic patterns, loss/latency/jitter,
and general karma of the Internet
would be improved, if those who currently peer with Cogent were to do
evaluate the impact of
de-peering them:

- How many networks are *single*-homed behind Cogent?
- Is anyone who *needs* Internet connectivity that unwise (to be
single homed anywhere, let alone behind Cogent)?
- If they *are* single-homed-to-Cogent, they aren't *your* customers. :slight_smile:
- (This could be applied to both IPv6 *and* IPv4 - the logic is the same)

Brinksmanship, like virtue or stupidity, is its own reward.


P.S. In the ancient game "go", there's a special rule on the two
players playing alternate single-piece steals, that limits it to N
times for very small N.
The game becomes futile and pointless, beyond a certain number of
repeated moves.
Ditto for not peering.

How is that different from what I said? One side wants to peer, the
other side says "no thanks". A list of reasons is nice, especially if
they will actually grant peering after you meet those requirements
(instead of just changing their requirements to deny you again :P), but
immaterial to the point. In EVERY peering dispute there is one side who
wants to peer, but that doesn't make this side any more noble or right,
especially if they don't meet the requirements and are simply trying to
force the peering through intentionally creating a partition then
playing the propaganda game to blame the other side for it.

Everyone complained when Cogent did it to others, why should it be any
different when HE does it to Cogent? I'm sorry but I don't accept
"because Cogent is giving away free IPv6 transit right now" as a valid
reason, especially when it very clearly advances their goals of
artificially inflating their customer base specifically so they CAN
engage in these peering disputes. It's a perfectly valid tactic that has
been used by the finest networks for years, but at least have the
decency to admit it for what it is, that's all I'm saying. :slight_smile: