[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
IPv6 Cogent vs Hurricane Electric
- Subject: IPv6 Cogent vs Hurricane Electric
- From: jared at puck.nether.net (Jared Mauch)
- Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 21:06:57 -0500
- In-reply-to: <CAEmG1=r=QZ5C9MwdNB_xaoQSGzv_7DB4niTooj=QHhcFWDMcoQ@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <[email protected]> <CAPkb-7BHZQH9P1=9iNA=-rJ7nRf2qG+WEYmamrZ+qR9zsPcWKQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAEmG1=r=QZ5C9MwdNB_xaoQSGzv_7DB4niTooj=QHhcFWDMcoQ@mail.gmail.com>
> On Dec 3, 2015, at 7:58 PM, Matthew Petach <mpetach at netflight.com> wrote:
>
> Or, if you feel that Cogent's stubborn insistence on
> partitioning the global v6 internet shouldn't be rewarded
> with money, pay someone *other* than cogent for
> IPv6 transit and also connect to HE.net; that way
> you still have access to cogent routes, but you also
> send a subtle economic nudge that says "hey cogent--
> trying to get into the tier 1 club by partitioning the
> internet isn't a good path for long-term sucess".
>
> Note that this is purely my own opinion, not necessarily
> that of my employer, my friends, my family, or even my
> cat. I asked my cat about cogent IPv6, and all I got was
> a ghostly hairball as a reply[0].
I would say that if you buy transit for IPv4, you should have congruent
relationship with IPv6 as well. A network that does one and not the
other is clearly obvious to a skilled engineer.
Partitioning networks is bad, and I?d like to see this resolved myself.
- Jared