Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it

["Matthew D. Hardeman" <mhardeman () ipifony com>]

Bill,

I find that I agree with much of what you’ve said.

If we further constrain the arguments that you set forth so as to cover only that traffic which the customers of the 
two networks would be able to exchange in any event, by way of transit services purchased by one or the other of the 
two networks, then I agree wholeheartedly, at least on a purely logical basis.

In that instance, the traffic is exchanged regardless (though often over links that saturate at peaks) and furthermore 
at additional expense to one or both of the networks involved.

From a logical perspective, if two networks will permit their subscribers to exchange data, why would those two 
networks not elect the least cost, highest quality mechanism for exchanging that traffic?

I can only think of economic reasons, and specifically the hope for potential revenue from the other networks’ 
customer, because the parties have been unable to exchange data reliably over congested transit links.

Look, for example, to what was quite obviously the intentional peak-period congestion on various Comcast transit and 
peering links.

I’ve personally acted in a technical and administrative capacity in helping clients of mine (voice service providers) 
add private paid peering / paid customer links into Comcast just to overcome voice quality issues during peak periods 
resulting from clearly congested transit and peering links.  It was obvious during those arrangements that Comcast had 
chosen to allow those links to congest as a policy matter in order to extract additional revenue by charging desperate 
“new customers” a premium toll for access to their subscribers behind the wall-of-congestion.

What’s fundamentally different in this IPv6 only Hurricane Electric <-> Cogent matter is that rather than have the 
traffic flow via transit (whether congested or not), there is quite simply no path between those two IPv6 networks.  
Hurricane Electric, clearly the IPv6 leader refuses to engage in the purchase of transit services for IPv6, and Cogent 
refuses to peer with HE on either protocol no matter what.  Thus, no flow of traffic between the two networks on IPv6.

Presumably Cogent’s policy is mostly about denying Hurricane Electric to the “Tier 1” club, on IPv6 that ship has 
sailed.  Let’s face it: when the really tough Tier 1s are peering with you (like Sprint, Level 3, AT&T), you’re in.  
Even Sprint peers with HE on IPv6 (though they do not on IPv4).  Honestly, I think Cogent is the only hold-out.  At 
least the only one that matters.

In as far as HE maintains an open peering policy both for IPv4 and IPv6, it’s clear that Cogent is the bad actor, 
denying their customers a path to Hurricane Electric customers.  I think the only reason this has been tolerated so far 
is that IPv6 has been a fringe matter until now.  Even today it’s a minority of network traffic, but it’s gaining fast.

If I were Cogent, I’d be more worried about denying my customers access to HE’s IPv6 network than the other way around.

Matt Hardeman


> On Jan 22, 2016, at 7:03 PM, William Herrin <bill () herrin us> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Brandon Butterworth
> <brandon () rd bbc co uk> wrote:
> > I'd like to peer with all tier 1's, they are thus all bad as
> > they won't.
>
> Correct.
>
> I've said it before and I'll say it again: an ISP's refusal to
> maintain a settlement-free open peering policy is directly linked with
> said company's fraudulent double-billing for services.
>
> In case you don't see it, I'll explain: whatever fictions you may tell
> yourselves, your customers pay you to connect them to the entire
> Internet. So do the other guy's customers. Settlement free peering
> means that at no _additional_ charge to anyone, you accept the packets
> your customers have paid you to accept from the other guy's customers.
> And vice versa. Peering does not trade packets you haven't been paid
> for. That's another fiction. Peering only trades packets one of your
> customers has paid you for.
>
> I get from there to double-billing because the alternative to
> settlement free peering is a paid relationship. The other guy has to
> buy from you directly (becoming the second payer for each packet) or
> he has to buy from one of the peers you've accepted But the peers
> you've accepted are constrained by ratios an related technical
> requirements which functionally prevent them from adding a sizable
> amount of traffic from that other guy, so unless he's doing a trifling
> business he pretty much has to buy service from you. Even though
> another customer has already paid you to perform that activity, you
> refuse to do the job unless the second party also becomes your
> customer and pays you. Fraud. Hidden behind a wall of technical
> minutiae but fraud all the same.
>
>
> Don't get me wrong. You can cure this fraud without going to extremes.
> An open peering policy doesn't require you to buy hardware for the
> other guy's convenience. Let him reimburse you or procure the hardware
> you spec out if he wants to peer. Nor do you have to extend your
> network to a location convenient for the other guy. Pick neutral
> locations where you're willing to peer and let the other guy build to
> them or pay you to build from there to him. Nor does an open peering
> policy require you to give the other guy a free ride on your
> international backbone: you can swap packets for just the regions of
> your network in which he's willing to establish a connection. But not
> ratios and traffic minimums -- those are not egalitarian, they're
> designed only to exclude the powerless.
>
> Taken in this context, the Cogent/HE IPv6 peering spat is very simple:
> Cogent is -the- bad actor. 100%.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
> -- 
> William Herrin ................ herrin () dirtside com  bill () herrin us
> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>