[187196] 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 05:31:30 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <201601211852.SAA05755@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 02:26:05 -0800
To: Brandon Butterworth <brandon@rd.bbc.co.uk>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> On Jan 21, 2016, at 10:52 AM, Brandon Butterworth =
<brandon@rd.bbc.co.uk> 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
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion and I assure you that I am =
fully cognizant of
the fact that HE is not without its faults.
However, I think your description of the scenario is rather heavily =
skewed, especially
when you consider that Cogent is basically the only remaining major (I =
find it hard
to call them a tier 1 given their behavior) provider that still refuses =
SFI of any form
with HE.
Owen
