[187190] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matthew Kaufman)
Thu Jan 21 21:30:56 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at>
In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGT6=QiJ=mgtRG2cCQqU4V0aa1hfSN2m6X9vhesbkY8aLg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 20:30:51 -0600
To: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:05 PM, Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Brandon Butterworth <brandon@rd.bbc.co.u=
k>
> wrote:
>=20
>>>> 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)
>>=20
>> I'd like to peer with all tier 1's, they are thus all bad as
>> they won't.
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>> Can the Cogent bashing stop now, save it for when they do something
>> properly bad.
>>=20
>> brandon
>=20
> Selling a service that is considered internet but does not deliver full
> internet access is generally considered properly bad.
>=20
> I would not do business with either company, since neither of them provide=
> a full view.
>=20
> CB
I note that if IPv6 was actually important, neither one could have gotten aw=
ay with it for so long.
Matthew Kaufman
(Sent from my iPhone)=
