[187410] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Jan 28 21:05:51 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <418446062.13084.1454032867016.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 18:04:44 -0800
To: Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Sadly, the law firms with big routers seem to prefer a regulatory =
environment that they
can manipulate, so it=E2=80=99s a tough situation to achieve a good =
outcome.
They are the ones that are blocking the industry from arriving at a good =
outcome without
regulation and they will likely be the ones driving regulation in =
ridiculous directions
away from good outcomes once we start to see regulation.
The way lawyers redefine terms and obfuscate to make regulations say =
what they want instead
of what any normal person would think they actually say is truly =
impressive.
Owen
> On Jan 28, 2016, at 18:01 , Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
>=20
> Nothing says a better Internet than one the government pokes their =
nose around in.=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> -----=20
> Mike Hammett=20
> Intelligent Computing Solutions=20
> http://www.ics-il.com=20
>=20
> Midwest-IX=20
> http://www.midwest-ix.com=20
>=20
> ----- Original Message -----
>=20
> From: "William Herrin" <bill@herrin.us>=20
> To: "Randy Bush" <randy@psg.com>=20
> Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org>=20
> Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 5:25:47 PM=20
> Subject: Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer =
Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it=20
>=20
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:=20
>> folk can rant on nanog all they want if it=20
>> makes them feel good or self-righteous.=20
>=20
> Hi Randy,=20
>=20
> It DOES make me feel good. And a little self-righteous.=20
>=20
>> won't change a damned thing.=20
>=20
> Some FCC employees read this forum. My impression is that they're not=20=
> terribly far from concluding that closed peering policies are=20
> anti-competitive. When I have such impressions I'm usually off by=20
> years. Still, it would be nice if just once an industry cleaned itself=20=
> up -before- regulators forced the issue.=20
>=20
> Regards,=20
> Bill Herrin=20
>=20
>=20
> --=20
> William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us=20
> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>=20
