Cogent - Google - HE Fun

Mark Tinka mark.tinka at
Wed Mar 16 20:34:51 UTC 2016

On 16/Mar/16 22:17, Owen DeLong wrote:

> Sure, that’s valid and I’m not criticizing your decision. Just saying that
> according to you, Cogent outright lied to you in 2014 and you let them get
> away with it.

I probably should have been clearer in stating that between 2010 and
2014, Cogent's IPv6 coverage improved significantly. Although we knew it
was not the complete view, it was close and had no material impact on
our IPv6 capabilities re: our customers either way, as a function of the
value their network offered us overall for the amount of money we pay to

In 2010 and 2012, Cogent would have been in a position to be the sole or
one of two upstreams for the networks I represented.

In 2014, they are one of 7x upstreams + tons of peering. So we were more


More information about the NANOG mailing list