Re: IPv6 Cogent vs Hurricane Electric

[Marty Strong via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>]

I think what’s stopping this from being a bigger issue is that neither network has many (if any) single-homed customers 
that don’t connect on IPv4, which as mentioned previously isn’t partitioned. If there were many IPv6 only eyeballs 
single-homed behind each network then it would be a bigger issue.

Regards,
Marty Strong
--------------------------------------
CloudFlare - AS13335
Network Engineer
marty () cloudflare com
+44 7584 906 055
smartflare (Skype)

http://www.peeringdb.com/view.php?asn=13335

> On 6 Dec 2015, at 18:38, joel jaeggli <joelja () bogus com> wrote:
>
> On 12/5/15 9:37 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > > On Dec 4, 2015, at 17:43 , Randy Bush <randy () psg com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Or, if you feel that Cogent's stubborn insistence on partitioning the
> > > > global v6 internet
> > >
> > > if A does not peer with B,
> > > then for all A and B
> > > they are evil partitioners?
> > >
> > > can we lower the rhetoric?
> > >
> > > randy
> >
> > Does that remain true for values of A where A is willing to peer with
> > B, but B refuses to peer with A?
>
> These are (mostly) reasonable business decisions engaged by (mostly)
> reasonable actors.  both providers have tools available to them to
> address the partition unilaterally as one of them does in ipv4  where
> they so inclined.
>
> Neither provider has significant numbers of single homed eyeballs
> marooned behind them which would be bad.
>
> > Owen