IPv6 Cogent vs Hurricane Electric

Sun Dec 6 20:47:35 UTC 2015

I think what’s stopping this from being a bigger issue is that neither network has many (if any) single-homed customers that don’t connect on IPv4, which as mentioned previously isn’t partitioned. If there were many IPv6 only eyeballs single-homed behind each network then it would be a bigger issue.

Regards,
Marty Strong
--------------------------------------
CloudFlare - AS13335
Network Engineer
marty at cloudflare.com
+44 7584 906 055
smartflare (Skype)

http://www.peeringdb.com/view.php?asn=13335

> On 6 Dec 2015, at 18:38, joel jaeggli <joelja at bogus.com> wrote:
> 
> On 12/5/15 9:37 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> 
>>> On Dec 4, 2015, at 17:43 , 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
>> 
>> Does that remain true for values of A where A is willing to peer with
>> B, but B refuses to peer with A?
> 
> These are (mostly) reasonable business decisions engaged by (mostly)
> reasonable actors.  both providers have tools available to them to
> address the partition unilaterally as one of them does in ipv4  where
> they so inclined.
> 
> Neither provider has significant numbers of single homed eyeballs
> marooned behind them which would be bad.
> 
>> Owen
>> 
> 
> 