nanog mailing list archives
Re: Cogent & Google IPv6
From: Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 14:26:36 -0600 (CST)
Isn't that how "Tier 1s" have always operated? Like, always? Customers or peers with peers subject to various requirements. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ricky Beam" <jfbeam () gmail com> To: "Matt Hoppes" <mhoppes () indigowireless com> Cc: "NANOG" <nanog () nanog org> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 2:18:24 PM Subject: Re: Cogent & Google IPv6 On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 14:46:56 -0500, Matt Hoppes <mhoppes () indigowireless com> wrote:
Isn't that how the Internet is suppose to work?
Perhaps. But that's not how *Cogent* works. They have a very idiotic view of "Tier 1". They have no transit connections with anyone; someone is paying them for every prefix they accept. Translation: No one in their right mind does business with Cogent.
Current thread:
- Re: Cogent & Google IPv6, (continued)
- Re: Cogent & Google IPv6 Randy Bush (Feb 25)
- Re: Cogent & Google IPv6 Constantine A. Murenin (Feb 25)
- Re: Cogent & Google IPv6 Baldur Norddahl (Feb 24)
- Re: Cogent & Google IPv6 Patrick W. Gilmore (Feb 24)
- Re: Cogent & Google IPv6 Mike Hammett (Feb 24)
- Re: Cogent & Google IPv6 Patrick W. Gilmore (Feb 24)
- Re: Cogent & Google IPv6 Mike Hammett (Feb 24)
- Re: Cogent & Google IPv6 Paras Jha (Feb 24)
- RE: Cogent & Google IPv6 Damien Burke (Feb 24)
- Re: Cogent & Google IPv6 Ricky Beam (Feb 24)
- Re: Cogent & Google IPv6 Mike Hammett (Feb 24)
- Re: Cogent & Google IPv6 Patrick W. Gilmore (Feb 24)
- Re: Cogent & Google IPv6 Ricky Beam (Feb 24)
- Re: Cogent & Google IPv6 Patrick W. Gilmore (Feb 24)
- Re: Cogent & Google IPv6 Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 24)
- Re: Cogent & Google IPv6 Randy Bush (Feb 25)