[193932] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Hunter Fuller)
Thu Mar 2 15:07:09 2017
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <20170302195932.GX6562@angus.ind.wpi.edu>
From: Hunter Fuller <hf0002+nanog@uah.edu>
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2017 20:06:55 +0000
To: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
I think the implication is that, on Cogent, there isn't. :)
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 14:00 Chuck Anderson <cra@wpi.edu> wrote:
> 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 b=
e
> > 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=E2=80=99t ask for a full view? With that, you can eas=
ily deal
> > > with that kind of problem.
>
