[186233] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Cogent vs Hurricane Electric
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jared Mauch)
Sun Dec 6 04:08:43 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGUGY2FkZ9DKJ1qTrSPRA3eTzNBqPLeQWZsitDc7VMxt3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 04:08:37 -0500
To: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> On Dec 6, 2015, at 2:56 AM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
>=20
> On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 11:49 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>> Where the definition of Full Table is everything that isn=E2=80=99t =
exclusively behind Cogent.
>=20
> I thought that was a full table in IPv4 as well?
The disjoint is IPv4 they can reach each other, but the relationships =
that exist for IPv4 aren=E2=80=99t all dual-stacked with congruent =
policies.
As with all things, I suspect this has more to do with =E2=80=9Cmarket =
optics=E2=80=9D vs what=E2=80=99s best for the network(s) involved.
my take: I don=E2=80=99t think there are a lot of actual missing bits as =
a result of this.
- Jared=
