nanog mailing list archives
Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it
From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka () seacom mu>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 21:58:21 +0200
On 25/Jan/16 21:28, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
It is but nobody worries about that, we trust route servers at IX carrying way more traffic than most of these access circuits.
Yes, but if those go belly-up, you have another exchange point to fall back to, a bi-lateral peering session, or an upstream provider. Or all three. A "critical" device falling over in my network is far worse prospect to experience. Mark.
Current thread:
- Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it, (continued)
- Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it Måns Nilsson (Jan 28)
- Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it Randy Bush (Jan 28)
- Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it William Herrin (Jan 28)
- Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it Mike Hammett (Jan 28)
- Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it Owen DeLong (Jan 28)
- Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it Mark Tinka (Jan 25)
- Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it Nick Hilliard (Jan 25)