[186237] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Cogent vs Hurricane Electric
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (joel jaeggli)
Sun Dec 6 13:40:57 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 10:38:33 -0800
In-Reply-To: <FCCD4763-5CF8-4D86-9882-36E5F9881432@delong.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--aS0QBFX6rERH4AFUKkg4HhnXIg8iqdvR7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 12/5/15 9:37 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>=20
>> On Dec 4, 2015, at 17:43 , Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Or, if you feel that Cogent's stubborn insistence on partitioning the=
>>> global v6 internet
>>
>> if A does not peer with B,
>> then for all A and B
>> they are evil partitioners?
>>
>> can we lower the rhetoric?
>>
>> randy
>=20
> Does that remain true for values of A where A is willing to peer with
> B, but B refuses to peer with A?
These are (mostly) reasonable business decisions engaged by (mostly)
reasonable actors. both providers have tools available to them to
address the partition unilaterally as one of them does in ipv4 where
they so inclined.
Neither provider has significant numbers of single homed eyeballs
marooned behind them which would be bad.
> Owen
>=20
--aS0QBFX6rERH4AFUKkg4HhnXIg8iqdvR7
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
iEYEARECAAYFAlZkgKsACgkQ8AA1q7Z/VrI8XACeL9bPVwKca3j2yUNJzJNVVese
xT4An2o6akdiAJHQWjTsdzOaIAP4yvv4
=pxK5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--aS0QBFX6rERH4AFUKkg4HhnXIg8iqdvR7--
