[186204] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Cogent vs Hurricane Electric
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jared Mauch)
Thu Dec 3 21:08:58 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAEmG1=r=QZ5C9MwdNB_xaoQSGzv_7DB4niTooj=QHhcFWDMcoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 21:06:57 -0500
To: Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> On Dec 3, 2015, at 7:58 PM, Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> Or, if you feel that Cogent's stubborn insistence on
> partitioning the global v6 internet shouldn't be rewarded
> with money, pay someone *other* than cogent for
> IPv6 transit and also connect to HE.net; that way
> you still have access to cogent routes, but you also
> send a subtle economic nudge that says "hey cogent--
> trying to get into the tier 1 club by partitioning the
> internet isn't a good path for long-term sucess".
>=20
> Note that this is purely my own opinion, not necessarily
> that of my employer, my friends, my family, or even my
> cat. I asked my cat about cogent IPv6, and all I got was
> a ghostly hairball as a reply[0].
I would say that if you buy transit for IPv4, you should have congruent
relationship with IPv6 as well. A network that does one and not the
other is clearly obvious to a skilled engineer.
Partitioning networks is bad, and I=E2=80=99d like to see this resolved =
myself.
- Jared
