[187198] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (jim deleskie)
Fri Jan 22 07:03:21 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <0C8CBFCB-E596-44BE-A31C-CAE0FB98652F@ipifony.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 08:03:17 -0400
From: jim deleskie <deleskie@gmail.com>
To: "Matthew D. Hardeman" <mhardeman@ipifony.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Was part of my first peering spat, probably 95/96=E2=80=8E since then many =
more,
couple even big enough they made nanog/ industry news, end of day they are
all the same. If you need to reach every where have more then one provider,
it's good practice anyway, a single cust or even a bunch of cust are NOT
going to influence peer decisions, so build your network so any 2 sides not
playing not, will not impact you cust's, so at least they don't have reason
to complain to you.
-jim
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:42 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman <mhardeman@ipifony.co=
m
> wrote:
> An excellent point. Nobody would tolerate this in IPv4 land. Those
> disputes tended to end in days and weeks (sometimes months), but not year=
s.
>
> That said, as IPv6 is finally gaining traction, I suspect we=E2=80=99ll b=
e seeing
> less tolerance for this behavior.
>
>
> > On Jan 21, 2016, at 8:30 PM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at> wrote=
:
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:05 PM, Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> 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 ful=
l
> >> internet access is generally considered properly bad.
> >>
> >> I would not do business with either company, since neither of them
> provide
> >> a full view.
> >>
> >> CB
> >
> > I note that if IPv6 was actually important, neither one could have
> gotten away with it for so long.
> >
> > Matthew Kaufman
> >
> > (Sent from my iPhone)
>
>
