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

Mike Hammett nanog at ics-il.net
Fri Jan 22 13:16:43 UTC 2016


Motivated sales departments always get whatever they want. Always. If they aren't getting what they (or you as customer) want, they aren't motivated enough. 




----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 


----- Original Message -----

From: "jim deleskie" <deleskie at gmail.com> 
To: "Matthew D. Hardeman" <mhardeman at ipifony.com> 
Cc: nanog at nanog.org 
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 6:03:17 AM 
Subject: Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it 

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 at 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 at matthew.at> wrote: 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >> On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:05 PM, Ca By <cb.list6 at gmail.com> wrote: 
> >> 
> >> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Brandon Butterworth < 
> brandon at rd.bbc.co.uk> 
> >> wrote: 
> >> 
> >>>>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:07 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman < 
> >>> mhardeman at 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) 
> 
> 




More information about the NANOG mailing list