[187195] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Fri Jan 22 05:27:13 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <56A127B2.6050904@garlic.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 02:23:28 -0800
To: Robert Glover <robertg@garlic.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> On Jan 21, 2016, at 10:47 AM, Robert Glover <robertg@garlic.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> On 1/21/2016 10:40 AM, Daniel Corbe wrote:
>>> 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=92d love to peer with Cogent), I=92m 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=92m 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=92t 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=92re=
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=92t 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=92t even in the top =
5 IMHO.
>>=20
>>=20
> Let's hear the top 5. Peering disputes are up there, but what else?
>=20
> We've had them as one of our providers going on 8 years, and we can =
only complain about the occasional peering disputes.
Crazy multihop BGP setups because they don=92t do BGP on many (most?) of =
their customer facing routers?
Frequent outages in many locations (maybe not where you are, seems to be =
certain problem areas on their network and not others)
Spamtastic sales force?
Overly aggressive sales calls?
I=92m sure there are more, but as I=92ve never been a Cogent customer =
(thankfully) due to their history of bad peering policies, peering =
disputes, generally obnoxious conduct as a company, etc. it is difficult =
for me to know much about the customer experience beyond what I hear =
from others, most of whom are former Cogent customers.
Interestingly, when I worked for HE, I wasn=92t allowed to speak my mind =
about Cogent lest it =93reflect badly=94 on HE.
Owen
