[188335] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Wed Mar 16 16:19:00 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <3dde96a6-d85c-a92b-c7d9-bd894dd076b0@seacom.mu>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 13:17:52 -0700
To: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> On Mar 16, 2016, at 12:42 , Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:
>=20
>=20
>=20
> On 16/Mar/16 21:23, Owen DeLong wrote:
>=20
>> Please confirm that you in fact are receiving 174 * 6939 IPv6 paths =
from them?
>>=20
>> Seems unlikely to me.
>=20
> Nope (neither IPv4 nor IPv6) - they are about 1,500 IPv6 routes short
> from what we see from the others.
>=20
Which means that they didn=92t meet your requirements, but you bought =
from them
anyway. Even in 2014, they still don=92t have a full IPv6 table, despite =
their
claim to the contrary.
> You're welcome to poke if you want to test my perspective:
>=20
> http://as37100.net/
>=20
I believe you.
> They've obviously regressed a little bit, although it appears they =
never
> did have any engagement with HE in particular, for either IP protocol.
> In fairness, we knew getting into bed with Cogent would bring Daily =
Joy,
> which is why we considered them last of all the major networks to =
on-board.
>=20
> But as I said before, we have sufficient transit and peering that
> Cogent's insufficiencies do not impact us. For now, what they have on
> their network offers us some value (and they aren't necessarily any
> cheaper than any of our other transit providers). If that value should
> drop below a level where having them on the network is neither here =
nor
> there, they'll get the boot.
Sure, that=92s valid and I=92m not criticizing your decision. Just =
saying that
according to you, Cogent outright lied to you in 2014 and you let them =
get
away with it.
Owen
