They both loses on this. In fact anyone claiming tier 1 status loses here,
because this illustrates why you can never be single homed on a tier 1
network. These guys simply do not have the full internet.
Regards,
Baldur
It is worth noting that HE indeed provides the full view, it's the other side that has an issue.
(Since HE isn't really a tier 1, their transit relationships with Telia and other carriers "save" them)
Cogent -> HE dies with unreachable on the first hop though, and that's an issue for Cogent customers.
Is "tier" even a thing anymore?
Whoops, spoke too soon.
While HE indeed seems to use the transits to reach Cogent, they only do this over v4.
IPv6 packets are indeed dropped on the first border. Sorry for the noise.
core1.fmt1.he.net> traceroute ipv6 2001:550:2:d:
2 numericTarget 2001:550:2:d:2
Hop Start 1
Hop End 30
Hop Packet 1 Packet 2 Packet 3 Hostname
1 * * * ?
2 * * * ?
3 * * * ?
4 * * * ?
IP: Errno(8) Trace Route Failed, no response from target node.
No, it's not an issue of A not peering
with B, it's A selling "internet transit"
for a known subset of the internet
rather than the whole kit and kaboodle.
right. then hurricane and cogent should both
make clear that they do not provide ipv6 transit
to the entire internet.
randy
It's Cogent. Seriously. They earned their disrespect.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
Admittedly, I may be biased, but even I am not sure in which direction.
HE and Cogent have been in a pissing match over peering for a very long time.
HE refuses to pay transit (which to me seems reasonable).
Cogent refuses to peer with HE or pay transit. (The latter seeming reasonable
to me, the former not so much).
The dispute is bad for the internet.
Paying Cogent would also, IMHO, be bad for the internet.
If it were me, I would drop Cogent, let them know why you are dropping them,
and find a provider that has transit to both Cogent and HE as a replacement.
YMMV.
Owen
The following may also be of interest from the archives:
Where the definition of Full Table is everything that isn’t exclusively behind Cogent.
Owen
Does that remain true for values of A where A is willing to peer with
B, but B refuses to peer with A?
Owen
I thought that was a full table in IPv4 as well?
-Bill
The disjoint is IPv4 they can reach each other, but the relationships that exist for IPv4 aren’t all dual-stacked with congruent policies.
As with all things, I suspect this has more to do with “market optics” vs what’s best for the network(s) involved.
my take: I don’t think there are a lot of actual missing bits as a result of this.
- Jared
Hi Jared,
I was being sarcastic. I would never accept Cogent as my sole service
provider because they have a history of getting in to arguments which
leave their customers with only a partial view of the Internet. In
IPv6 -AND- IPv4. As far as I'm concerned, anyone exclusively on Cogent
isn't fully on the Internet and it's not my problem to get them there.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
Or, if you feel that Cogent's stubborn insistence on partitioning the
global v6 internetif A does not peer with B,
then for all A and B
they are evil partitioners?can we lower the rhetoric?
randy
Does that remain true for values of A where A is willing to peer with
B, but B refuses to peer with A?
These are (mostly) reasonable business decisions engaged by (mostly)
reasonable actors. both providers have tools available to them to
address the partition unilaterally as one of them does in ipv4 where
they so inclined.
Neither provider has significant numbers of single homed eyeballs
marooned behind them which would be bad.
I think what’s stopping this from being a bigger issue is that neither network has many (if any) single-homed customers that don’t connect on IPv4, which as mentioned previously isn’t partitioned. If there were many IPv6 only eyeballs single-homed behind each network then it would be a bigger issue.
Regards,
Marty Strong
I have to change at least one of my uplinks because of it, which one is
better to drop, HE or Cogent?Question: Why would you have to drop one of them? You have no problem if
you have both.
Because of money, isn't it? I don't want to pay twice!
Even in the case of a link failure to one of them, you will likely not see
a big impact since everyone else also keeps multiple transits. You will
only have trouble with people that are single homed Cogent or HE, in which
case it is more them having a problem than you.
As I fully implement IPv6 on my net, I got a HUGE impact already. That's
the problem.
So as this is not a bug, but a long time story - I relized for me as a
cutomer connectivity from both Hurricane Electric and Cogent is a crap.
So people should avoid both, and buy for example from Level3 and NTT,
which do not have such problem and do not sell me partial connectivity
without any warning before signing the contract.
I'm just a IP transit customer, and I don't give a something for that
wars who is the real Tier1. I just want a working service for my money
instead of answering a hundreds calls from my subscribers!
I have to change at least one of my uplinks because of it, which one is
better to drop, HE or Cogent?Question: Why would you have to drop one of them? You have no problem if
you have both.Because of money, isn't it? I don't want to pay twice!
Completely makes sense--you want to get the
most value possible for the dollars you spend,
which means you want to choose upstream
providers that give you the most complete
view of the internet possible.
So as this is not a bug, but a long time story - I relized for me as a
cutomer connectivity from both Hurricane Electric and Cogent is a crap.
So people should avoid both, and buy for example from Level3 and NTT,
which do not have such problem and do not sell me partial connectivity
without any warning before signing the contract.I'm just a IP transit customer, and I don't give a something for that
wars who is the real Tier1. I just want a working service for my money
instead of answering a hundreds calls from my subscribers!
So, for you, the choice is going to come
down to a comparison of how much each
provider charges vs how much of a headache
they're creating for you in terms of partial
reachability problems. While bigger entities
like Level 3 and NTT will give you fewer reachability
headaches, they're also likely to charge more; and
you don't want to put all your eggs in one basket.
So, hypothetically speaking, if Level3 and NTT
both charge $2/mb/s/month, and Cogent and
HE charge $0.75/mb/s/month, you might
find that you get a more cost-effective
blend by getting 3 circuits, one each
from Level3 OR NTT, and Cogent,
and HE, for a total cost of $2+$0.75+$0.75,
or $3.50, instead of the other option
of buying two circuits, one each
from Level3 and NTT, which would
be $2+$2, or $4.
Yes, I realize this is completely contrived
hypothetical set of prices, but the point is
only you have the knowledge of how much
each provider is charging you; take that
information, do a few searches in your
favorite search engine for "$PROVIDER
peering dispute", and see which providers
have the best and worst histories as far
as getting into peering disputes, and then
choose accordingly.
It would be nice if there were a rating
system for ISPs that would make it
easier for smaller companies to know
if they were buying from an "A" rated
ISP vs a "C" or "D" rated ISP, somewhat
like restaurants that have to post their
department of health scores visibly.
However, without any overseeing entity
that would provide such a rating service,
for now it's up to each buyer to do their
own research to decide which ISPs are
safer to work with, and which ones are
riskier.
Best of luck making the right choices!
Thanks!
Matt
Or you could buy from some so called "tier 2" or "tier 3" providers
instead. Say the world has 6 tier 1 providers called A, B, C, D, E and F.
Ideally you would get the best connectivity (the most direct routes) by
buying from two tier 2, one which has A, B and C as uplink and the other
has D, E and F.
In my experience the connectivity between tier 1 providers can be really
bad. If I use only my Cogent transit, some traffic will go from Europe to
New York and back again. The performance is so bad that my customers will
start calling me and claim the network is down. Just looking at the routing
table will not tell you the full story here.
Back to the real world: Cogent is good for dirt cheap transit, HE is good
for their massive peering and then you also take in someone local to cover
all your bases.
Regards,
Baldur
I have to change at least one of my uplinks because of it, which one is
better to drop, HE or Cogent?Question: Why would you have to drop one of them? You have no problem if
you have both.Because of money, isn't it? I don't want to pay twice!
Even in the case of a link failure to one of them, you will likely not see
a big impact since everyone else also keeps multiple transits. You will
only have trouble with people that are single homed Cogent or HE, in which
case it is more them having a problem than you.As I fully implement IPv6 on my net, I got a HUGE impact already. That's
the problem.So as this is not a bug, but a long time story - I relized for me as a
cutomer connectivity from both Hurricane Electric and Cogent is a crap.
So people should avoid both, and buy for example from Level3 and NTT,
which do not have such problem and do not sell me partial connectivity
without any warning before signing the contract.
I agree with your conclusion, however, your premise is not correct —
technically, HE is /not/ requiring you to purchase IPv6 from them; in
fact, they're rather openly giving away IPv6, including IPv6 transit,
away for free.
My understanding is that this includes both the tunnels (including
BGP) and the on-premise connectivity options.
So, feel free to ask for your money back from HE, and try that with Cogent, too!
C.