[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it
- Subject: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it
- From: matthew at matthew.at (Matthew Kaufman)
- Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 20:30:51 -0600
- In-reply-to: <CAD6AjGT6=QiJ=mgtRG2cCQqU4V0aa1hfSN2m6X9vhesbkY8aLg@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <[email protected]> <CAD6AjGT6=QiJ=mgtRG2cCQqU4V0aa1hfSN2m6X9vhesbkY8aLg@mail.gmail.com>
> On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:05 PM, Ca By <cb.list6 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Brandon Butterworth <brandon at rd.bbc.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:07 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman <
>> mhardeman at ipifony.com> wrote:
>>>> Since Cogent is clearly the bad actor here (the burden being
>>>> Cogent's to prove otherwise because HE is publicly on record as saying
>>>> that theyd love to peer with Cogent)
>>
>> I'd like to peer with all tier 1's, they are thus all bad as
>> they won't.
>>
>> HE decided they want to be transit free for v6 and set out on
>> a campaign of providing free tunnels/transit/peering to establish
>> this. Cogent, for all their faults, are free to not accept the
>> offer.
>>
>> Can the Cogent bashing stop now, save it for when they do something
>> properly bad.
>>
>> brandon
>
> Selling a service that is considered internet but does not deliver full
> internet access is generally considered properly bad.
>
> I would not do business with either company, since neither of them provide
> a full view.
>
> CB
I note that if IPv6 was actually important, neither one could have gotten away with it for so long.
Matthew Kaufman
(Sent from my iPhone)