[187163] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ca By)
Thu Jan 21 14:05:37 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <201601211852.SAA05755@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 11:05:02 -0800
From: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>
To: Brandon Butterworth <brandon@rd.bbc.co.uk>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Brandon Butterworth <brandon@rd.bbc.co.uk>
wrote:
> > > On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:07 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman <
> mhardeman@ipifony.com> wrote:
> > > 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 theyd love to peer with Cogent)
>
> I'd like to peer with all tier 1's, they are thus all bad as
> they won't.
>
> HE decided they want to be transit free for v6 and set out on
> a campaign of providing free tunnels/transit/peering to establish
> this. Cogent, for all their faults, are free to not accept the
> offer.
>
> Can the Cogent bashing stop now, save it for when they do something
> properly bad.
>
> brandon
>
Selling a service that is considered internet but does not deliver full
internet access is generally considered properly bad.
I would not do business with either company, since neither of them provide
a full view.
CB
