[187205] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Maimon)
Fri Jan 22 15:28:39 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>, Robert Glover <robertg@garlic.com>
From: Joe Maimon <jmaimon@ttec.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 15:28:19 -0500
In-Reply-To: <F6C53E1B-632B-4473-BDD9-AD3CDFE634BC@delong.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>
> Crazy multihop BGP setups
I like that setup. And it never struck me as crazy. In fact, their
implementation avoids all multihop setup shortcuts and is quite purist
from a routing standpoint.
The multihop approach gives you the option of where to slice and dice
your full table direct from ebgp.
In essence, that setup enables you as a customer to have a setup exactly
like Cogent had as a vendor. If thats what you want.
> because they don’t do BGP on many (most?) of their customer facing routers?
I have a pending request to get that multi-hop setup. I was told that it
was now a special request and they would "try" to get it done and these
days all their routers had full table capacity and they no longer used
the multi-hop.
> 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’m sure there are more, but as I’ve 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’t allowed to speak my mind about Cogent lest it “reflect badly” on HE.
>
> Owen
>
