Cogent sales reps who actually respond
Mike Lyon
mike.lyon at gmail.com
Tue Sep 17 02:54:37 UTC 2019
Within the past year or two i’ve seen it occur.
> On Sep 16, 2019, at 18:44, Ben Cannon <ben at 6by7.net> wrote:
>
> “They also run their links hot which create latency for anything flowing through it.”
>
> Mike, I’d have agreed with you - 15 years ago. Is this current at all? My views on Cogent have evolved dramatically over the years. How recent is your data?
>
> -Ben
>
>> On Sep 16, 2019, at 4:21 PM, Mike Lyon <mike.lyon at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The argument has been listed numerous times so i didn’t want to bore people:
>>
>> 1. Sprint peering battle. Google it
>> 2. He.net peering battle. Google it.
>> 3. Google IPv6 peering battle. Google it.
>>
>> All of which point to them being pompous assholes.
>>
>> They also run their links hot which create latency for anything flowing through it.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Mike
>>
>>> On Sep 16, 2019, at 15:59, Stephen M. <stephen.myspam at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Please don’t praise or complain like we’re supposed to take it at a total face value. If you don’t like them so much - we are you’re audience. Explain.
>>>
>>> If you like Cogent - explain.
>>> If you don’t like Cogent - explain.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Stephen
>>>
>>> //please pardon any brevities - sent from mobile//
>>>
>>>> On Sep 16, 2019, at 10:01 PM, Mike Lyon <mike.lyon at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Whenever asked about Cogent, i just say, “Friends don’t let friends use Cogent.”
>>>>
>>>> I’ve told two of their reps over the past two years that even if the service was free, i wouldn’t use it. And yet, they still call.
>>>>
>>>> -Mike
>>>>
>>>>>> On Sep 16, 2019, at 13:53, Ronald F. Guilmette <rfg at tristatelogic.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <E814E5F6-F386-4AAE-BADA-E423D299A4FB at delong.com>,
>>>>>> Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given their practice of harvesting whois updates in order to spam newly
>>>>>> acquired AS contacts, any time it is my decision, Cogent is ineligible
>>>>>> as a vendor.
>>>>>
>>>>> So I guess then that their aiding and abetting of fraud and IP block
>>>>> theft, as I documented here recently, is an entirely secondary concern...
>>>>> as long as they don't spam you, yes?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> rfg
More information about the NANOG
mailing list