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

[jim deleskie <deleskie () gmail com>]

Was part of my first peering spat, probably 95/96‎ since then many more,
couple even big enough they made nanog/ industry news, end of day they are
all the same. If you need to reach every where have more then one provider,
it's good practice anyway, a single cust or even a bunch of cust are NOT
going to influence peer decisions, so build your network so any 2 sides not
playing not, will not impact you cust's, so at least they don't have reason
to complain to you.

-jim

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:42 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman <mhardeman () ipifony com
> wrote:

> An excellent point.  Nobody would tolerate this in IPv4 land.  Those
> disputes tended to end in days and weeks (sometimes months), but not years.
>
> That said, as IPv6 is finally gaining traction, I suspect we’ll be seeing
> less tolerance for this behavior.
>
>
> > On Jan 21, 2016, at 8:30 PM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew () matthew at> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:05 PM, Ca By <cb.list6 () gmail com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:52 AM, 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
> > >
> > > Selling a service that is considered internet but does not deliver full
> > > internet access is generally considered properly bad.
> > >
> > > I would not do business with either company, since neither of them
> provide
> > > a full view.
> > >
> > > CB
> >
> > I note that if IPv6 was actually important, neither one could have
> gotten away with it for so long.
> > Matthew Kaufman
> >
> > (Sent from my iPhone)