[193931] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Chuck Anderson)
Thu Mar 2 15:00:52 2017
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2017 14:59:33 -0500
From: Chuck Anderson <cra@WPI.EDU>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <CAPkb-7DUaHUGqG=CPw2JyDAstt1eNPGSYZq0PK9dOnQ3wC4PYQ@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Define "good" vs. "bad" transport of bits. As long as there is
adequate bandwidth and low latency, who cares?
On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 08:30:37PM +0100, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
> That will have the effect of prioritizing Cogent routes as that would be
> more specific than the default routes from the other providers. Cogent are
> not that good that you would want to do that.
>
> Den 2. mar. 2017 20.16 skrev "Jeff Waddell" <jeff+nanog@waddellsolutions.com
> >:
>
> Or at least ask for a full view from Cogent - then you won't get any routes
> they don't have
>
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Alarig Le Lay <alarig@swordarmor.fr> wrote:
>
> > On jeu. 2 mars 12:36:04 2017, Aaron Gould wrote:
> > > Well, I asked my (3) upstream providers to only send me a ipv6 default
> > > route and they sent me ::/0...here's one of them...
> >
> > Why did you don’t ask for a full view? With that, you can easily deal
> > with that kind of problem.
