IPv6 Cogent vs Hurricane Electric

Matthew Petach mpetach at netflight.com
Sat Dec 5 02:08:27 UTC 2015

On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 5:43 PM, Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote:
>> Or, if you feel that Cogent's stubborn insistence on partitioning the
>> global v6 internet
> if A does not peer with B,
> then for all A and B
> they are evil partitioners?
> can we lower the rhetoric?
> randy

I thought we already had this conversation
a few years ago, but my memory is short,
so we can have it again.   ^_^;

No, it's not an issue of A not peering
with B, it's A selling "internet transit"
for a known subset of the internet
rather than the whole kit and kaboodle.

I rather think that if you're going to put
a sign out saying "we sell internet transit",
it *is* incumbent on you to make a best
effort to ensure you have as complete
a copy of the full routing table as possible;
otherwise, it's potentially a fraudulent claim.
At least, that's what it would be in any other
industry if you sold something under a particular
name while knowing the whole time it didn't
fit the definition of the product.

I know in the service station industry,
I'd get in a lot of trouble if I sold "premium
unleaded gasoline" that was really just the
same as the "regular unleaded" with a
different label.  It's fortunate that we're
not a regulated industry, so there's nobody
checking up on us to make sure that if
we sell "internet transit", it's not really
"internet transit, minus level3, sprint, ATT,
and a bunch of other networks that won't
get your prefixes from me".

It all boils down to 'caveat emptor' -- not all
uses of the word "internet transit" mean the
same thing--check carefully when buying, and
make sure you make informed decisions.

(now with 50% less rhetoric!)

More information about the NANOG mailing list