[186235] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Cogent vs Hurricane Electric
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Herrin)
Sun Dec 6 13:33:59 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
X-Really-To: <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <678E9A34-B5D1-4161-8126-22A9E94EB4D8@puck.nether.net>
From: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 13:33:24 -0500
To: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 4:08 AM, Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> wrote:
>> On Dec 6, 2015, at 2:56 AM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
>> 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 exc=
lusively behind Cogent.
>> I thought that was a full table in IPv4 as well?
>
> The disjoint is IPv4 they can reach each other, but the relationships tha=
t exist for IPv4 aren=E2=80=99t all dual-stacked with congruent policies.
Hi Jared,
I was being sarcastic. I would never accept Cogent as my sole service
provider because they have a history of getting in to arguments which
leave their customers with only a partial view of the Internet. In
IPv6 -AND- IPv4. As far as I'm concerned, anyone exclusively on Cogent
isn't fully on the Internet and it's not my problem to get them there.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--=20
William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
