[187158] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel Corbe)
Thu Jan 21 13:40:16 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Daniel Corbe <dcorbe@hammerfiber.com>
In-Reply-To: <D76EC19B-8A4A-4340-B667-57057432E40C@ipifony.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 13:40:03 -0500
To: "Matthew D. Hardeman" <mhardeman@ipifony.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:07 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman =
<mhardeman@ipifony.com> wrote:
>=20
> Since Cogent is clearly the bad actor here (the burden being Cogent's =
to prove otherwise because HE is publicly on record as saying that =
they=E2=80=99d love to peer with Cogent), I=E2=80=99m giving serious =
consideration to dropping Cogent come renewal time and utilizing NTT or =
Zayo instead.
>=20
> While that would not immediately solve the problem that if the NTT or =
Zayo link went down, single-homed Cogent customers would loose access to =
me via IPv6, I=E2=80=99m actually ok with that. It at least lets =
ensures that when there is a problem, the problem affects only =
single-home Cogent clients. Thus, the problem is borne exclusively by =
the people who pay the bad actor who is causing this problem. That =
tends to get uncomfortable for the payee (i.e. Cogent).
>=20
>=20
Take two transit providers that aren=E2=80=99t in the group of (HE, =
Cogent). Cogent is probably banking on this being the response; =
figuring that they have the financial resources to outlast HE if =
they=E2=80=99re both shedding customers. =20
If you really wanted to stick it to Cogent, take 3 transit providers: HE =
and two of any other providers besides Cogent. =20
Cogent clearly aren=E2=80=99t going to cave to their own customers =
asking them to peer with HE. Otherwise it would have happened by now. =20=
Cogent sucks for lots of reasons and this one isn=E2=80=99t even in the =
top 5 IMHO.
