[118231] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Is v6 as important as v4? Of course not [was: IPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dave Temkin)
Wed Oct 14 12:20:13 2009
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 09:19:12 -0700
From: Dave Temkin <davet1@gmail.com>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
In-Reply-To: <m2eip6ou4k.wl%randy@psg.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Randy Bush wrote:
>> As for accusations, I challenge you to show where I accused them of
>> anything.
>>
>
>
>> From: patrick@ianai.net (Patrick W. Gilmore)
>> Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:09:58 -0400
>> Subject: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering
>> In-Reply-To: <a05493650910120441i27550f17qaa7d3377824afdda@mail.gmail.com>
>> References: <a05493650910120441i27550f17qaa7d3377824afdda@mail.gmail.com>
>> Message-ID: <0A37FD5D-D9D1-4D89-AC8A-105612BB8E39@ianai.net>
>>
>> ...
>>
>> It is sad to see that networks which used to care about connectivity,
>> peering, latency, etc., when they are small change their mind when
>> they are "big". The most recent example is Cogent, an open peer who
>> decided to turn down peers when they reached transit free status.
>>
>
>
>> I never thought HE would be one of those networks.
>>
>
>
The only thing Patrick is guilty of is not providing enough context.
The party at fault here is Cogent. If you re-read the entire thread and
speak with Mike Leber, you'll find that HE offered peering and/or
transit, for free, to Cogent - like they do to everyone else, and Cogent
didn't take it, providing for the segmentation we saw.
-Dave
