[186241] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Cogent vs Hurricane Electric
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Marty Strong via NANOG)
Sun Dec 6 15:47:42 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <566480A9.3070603@bogus.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 20:47:35 +0000
To: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
From: Marty Strong via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Reply-To: Marty Strong <marty@cloudflare.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
I think what=92s stopping this from being a bigger issue is that neither =
network has many (if any) single-homed customers that don=92t connect on =
IPv4, which as mentioned previously isn=92t partitioned. If there were =
many IPv6 only eyeballs single-homed behind each network then it would =
be a bigger issue.
Regards,
Marty Strong
--------------------------------------
CloudFlare - AS13335
Network Engineer
marty@cloudflare.com
+44 7584 906 055
smartflare (Skype)
http://www.peeringdb.com/view.php?asn=3D13335
> On 6 Dec 2015, at 18:38, joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> wrote:
>=20
> On 12/5/15 9:37 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>=20
>>> On Dec 4, 2015, at 17:43 , Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
>>>=20
>>>> Or, if you feel that Cogent's stubborn insistence on partitioning =
the
>>>> global v6 internet
>>>=20
>>> if A does not peer with B,
>>> then for all A and B
>>> they are evil partitioners?
>>>=20
>>> can we lower the rhetoric?
>>>=20
>>> 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?
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> Neither provider has significant numbers of single homed eyeballs
> marooned behind them which would be bad.
>=20
>> Owen
>>=20
>=20
>=20
