Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it

["Matthew D. Hardeman" <mhardeman () ipifony com>]

I hear you.

Taken to extremes, I can see how the argument sounds like that.

However…  I have some thoughts on what you’ve said.

Most of us would never get peerings to all the Tier 1s.

But…

Hurricane Electric already has IPv6 peering to every network that matters, save for Cogent’s.  Every other accepted 
Tier 1 peers with HE on IPv6.  Even SPRINT.  If we got back historically, they (Sprint) were among the most coveted and 
hardest to get IP peerings.  Even they recognized HE’s dominance of the IPv6 space early on.

I’m not bashing Cogent.  I’m a customer of theirs and they’ve generally served me well.  The trouble I have in 
accepting Cogent’s behavior in this matter is that it just seems irrational.  If a typical, public forum peering 
dispute arose between HE & Cogent regarding IPv6, frankly and pretty objectively, you’d expect it to be Hurricane 
Electric questioning the value of peering Cogent IPv6 rather than Cogent questioning HE.

I don’t question these parties’ rights not to peer, but I do question the logic behind it.  I think Cogent is hurting 
themselves on this more than HE is getting hurt by it.


> On Jan 21, 2016, at 12:52 PM, Brandon Butterworth <brandon () rd bbc co uk> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:07 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman <mhardeman () ipifony com> wrote:
> > > Since Cogent is clearly the bad actor here (the burden being
> > > Cogent's to prove otherwise because HE is publicly on record as saying
> > > that theyd love to peer with Cogent)
>
> I'd like to peer with all tier 1's, they are thus all bad as
> they won't.
>
> HE decided they want to be transit free for v6 and set out on
> a campaign of providing free tunnels/transit/peering to establish
> this. Cogent, for all their faults, are free to not accept the
> offer.
>
> Can the Cogent bashing stop now, save it for when they do something
> properly bad.
>
> brandon