Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/hurricane not peering

[VOLKAN KIRIK <volkirik () gmail com>]

the companies are here to trade, charge prices for their services.... so 
why blame cogent for doing what they supposed to be doing?

why did hurricane stop BGP tunnel service? and started asking for 500 
usd/month for peering? expense of BGP servers? or did they realize ipv6 
prefixes does not cost MRC, so their network peers are not serious business.

why did Google start charging for cloud gigabytes?

if he.net opens free BGP tunnel service back; and also announce full 
transit routes on IXPs, thats just zero (payback)...

if they provide free ip transit to everyone; I would think that cogent 
should provide free network access to them...

if google doesnt charge for traffic in cloud services, then they will be 
largest in my eyes.

if cogent asks for a price, then they have to pay (to become tier1)... 
simple as that. or they could stay as tier-2 as long as they want. thats 
called free as in freedom. not as in price.

*doesnt level3 pay comcast money for paid-peering?*

building eyeball network, enabling fiber connectivity in buildings has 
much more meaning to me...

so honestly i am fine with segmented ipv6 internet. i would just not 
prefer he.net in my IP transit blend, as i do not have to respect crying 
beggars.... and i could choose telia+cogent.

he.net guys are just charging you money for dumping your traffic in IX 
Points, that you can do yourself, be eyeball or content network..

btw, losts of useless prefixes... think an asn has 1000 ipv6 prefixes 
but less than 1 ge traffic, while there are networks exceeding 10ge with 
just one prefix. ipv6 nat is spreading. just like ipv4 nat.

could you analyze traffic amount of ASNs? no. then dont fuckin call them 
largest or i will kick your monkey ass.

i am the god!


11.08.2022 17:01 tarihinde August Yang yazdı:
> Think twice before asking the largest global IPv6 network as measured 
> by prefixes announced to pay Cogent for peering.
>
> Also what’s with Telia here?
>
> Best regards
> August Yang
>
> On 2022-08-11 09:46, VOLKAN KIRIK wrote:
> > hello
> >
> > nobody has to peer with some operator for free. they are simply
> > trading internet services. they do not have to believe in FREE (as in
> > price) internet connectivity.. if they peered you, you would decrease
> > the price of the products even more and more...
> >
> > ask cogentco (as174) for paid peering. they will give you nice paid
> > peering or ip transit offer that you can use for both ipv4 and ipv6.
> >
> > for example i would assume they would be OK charging he.net (as6939) 5
> > usd cent per megabit.
> >
> > you need to understand that you are never going to become tier1
> > without support from as174. they are currently cheapest and they are
> > okay with dual homing too. think like united nations security council.
> >
> > you must think twice; are you gaining any profit by segmenting
> > world-wide internet? or are you loosing prospective single-homing
> > customers because you lack connectivity to as174 clients?
> >
> > we must think big. asking for a money is OKay while begging for FREE
> > service is not... operating NOC and backbone has some expenses that
> > henet wouldnt understand with their rented links. cogentco bear much
> > more expenses than henet
> >
> > i am not here to insult henet but i honestly think that they are
> > contemptible... just like google's peering decision makers.
> >
> > sir! if you have become big content/eyeball operator, doesnt mean that
> > every operator in the industry have to respect your tier-1 policy and
> > give you their services for free. thats the thing henet and google
> > couldnt understand. think like UNSC and you will understand
> >
> > even USA can not do anything they want in the world, as RU has voting
> > right, too.
> >
> > TL;DR; instead of crying here and begging for free service. send real
> > representatives that could negotiate the money you would pay.
> >
> > bye