[187201] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mike Hammett)
Fri Jan 22 08:16:50 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 07:16:43 -0600 (CST)
From: Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <CAJL_ZMOWRG7NJ4tZ1s_DoKujyBo+R5amtukXghvYneP5Myg6LQ@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Motivated sales departments always get whatever they want. Always. If they =
aren't getting what they (or you as customer) want, they aren't motivated e=
nough.=20
-----=20
Mike Hammett=20
Intelligent Computing Solutions=20
http://www.ics-il.com=20
Midwest Internet Exchange=20
http://www.midwest-ix.com=20
----- Original Message -----
From: "jim deleskie" <deleskie@gmail.com>=20
To: "Matthew D. Hardeman" <mhardeman@ipifony.com>=20
Cc: nanog@nanog.org=20
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 6:03:17 AM=20
Subject: Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane E=
lectric - and how to solve it=20
Was part of my first peering spat, probably 95/96=E2=80=8E since then many =
more,=20
couple even big enough they made nanog/ industry news, end of day they are=
=20
all the same. If you need to reach every where have more then one provider,=
=20
it's good practice anyway, a single cust or even a bunch of cust are NOT=20
going to influence peer decisions, so build your network so any 2 sides not=
=20
playing not, will not impact you cust's, so at least they don't have reason=
=20
to complain to you.=20
-jim=20
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:42 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman <mhardeman@ipifony.co=
m=20
> wrote:=20
> An excellent point. Nobody would tolerate this in IPv4 land. Those=20
> disputes tended to end in days and weeks (sometimes months), but not year=
s.=20
>=20
> That said, as IPv6 is finally gaining traction, I suspect we=E2=80=99ll b=
e seeing=20
> less tolerance for this behavior.=20
>=20
>=20
> > On Jan 21, 2016, at 8:30 PM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at> wrote=
:=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >> On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:05 PM, Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:=20
> >>=20
> >> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Brandon Butterworth <=20
> brandon@rd.bbc.co.uk>=20
> >> wrote:=20
> >>=20
> >>>>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:07 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman <=20
> >>> mhardeman@ipifony.com> wrote:=20
> >>>>> Since Cogent is clearly the bad actor here (the burden being=20
> >>>>> Cogent's to prove otherwise because HE is publicly on record as=20
> saying=20
> >>>>> that theyd love to peer with Cogent)=20
> >>>=20
> >>> I'd like to peer with all tier 1's, they are thus all bad as=20
> >>> they won't.=20
> >>>=20
> >>> HE decided they want to be transit free for v6 and set out on=20
> >>> a campaign of providing free tunnels/transit/peering to establish=20
> >>> this. Cogent, for all their faults, are free to not accept the=20
> >>> offer.=20
> >>>=20
> >>> Can the Cogent bashing stop now, save it for when they do something=
=20
> >>> properly bad.=20
> >>>=20
> >>> brandon=20
> >>=20
> >> Selling a service that is considered internet but does not deliver ful=
l=20
> >> internet access is generally considered properly bad.=20
> >>=20
> >> I would not do business with either company, since neither of them=20
> provide=20
> >> a full view.=20
> >>=20
> >> CB=20
> >=20
> > I note that if IPv6 was actually important, neither one could have=20
> gotten away with it for so long.=20
> >=20
> > Matthew Kaufman=20
> >=20
> > (Sent from my iPhone)=20
>=20
>=20
