Mailing List Archive

IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering
Hi,
I recently noticed that there seems a peering issue on the ipv6 internet.
As we all know hurricane is currently the largest ipv6 carrier. Other large
carriers are now implementing ipv6 on their networks, like Cogent and Telia.

However, due to some politics it seems that they are not peering with each
other resulting in a broken ipv6 internet currently. I noticed this by using
the looking glasses from telia and hurricane.

This is only a real problem if you use hurricane as the only transit.
However, hurricane also announces 6to4 relays. When you happen to use the
hurricane relay server (due to the shortest path), cogent and telia (and
maybe more) are not reachable.

I already asked hurricane about their point of view. They simply just ignore
it because they 'are the biggest one'.

I'm currious about you point of view.

regards, Igor Ybema
Senior network Administrator
Oxilion
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
On Oct 12, 2009, at 7:41 AM, Igor Ybema wrote:

> I recently noticed that there seems a peering issue on the ipv6
> internet.
> As we all know hurricane is currently the largest ipv6 carrier.
> Other large
> carriers are now implementing ipv6 on their networks, like Cogent
> and Telia.
>
> However, due to some politics it seems that they are not peering
> with each
> other resulting in a broken ipv6 internet currently. I noticed this
> by using
> the looking glasses from telia and hurricane.
>
> This is only a real problem if you use hurricane as the only transit.
> However, hurricane also announces 6to4 relays. When you happen to
> use the
> hurricane relay server (due to the shortest path), cogent and telia
> (and
> maybe more) are not reachable.
>
> I already asked hurricane about their point of view. They simply
> just ignore
> it because they 'are the biggest one'.

It is sad to see that networks which used to care about connectivity,
peering, latency, etc., when they are small change their mind when
they are "big". The most recent example is Cogent, an open peer who
decided to turn down peers when they reached transit free status.

I never thought HE would be one of those networks.

--
TTFN,
patrick
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
On Oct 12, 2009, at 6:09 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:

> It is sad to see that networks which used to care about
> connectivity, peering, latency, etc., when they are small change
> their mind when they are "big". The most recent example is Cogent,
> an open peer who decided to turn down peers when they reached
> transit free status.
>
> I never thought HE would be one of those networks.


Do we have any proof it's HE rejecting peering or is it that Cogent en
Telia alike that are to proud to ask and think they can have a piece
of the pie as they did with v4 ?

MarcoH
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
Igor Ybema wrote:
> Hi,
> I recently noticed that there seems a peering issue on the ipv6 internet.
> As we all know hurricane is currently the largest ipv6 carrier. Other large
> carriers are now implementing ipv6 on their networks, like Cogent and Telia.
>
> However, due to some politics it seems that they are not peering with each
> other resulting in a broken ipv6 internet currently. I noticed this by using
> the looking glasses from telia and hurricane.
>
> This is only a real problem if you use hurricane as the only transit.
> However, hurricane also announces 6to4 relays. When you happen to use the
> hurricane relay server (due to the shortest path), cogent and telia (and
> maybe more) are not reachable.
>
> I already asked hurricane about their point of view. They simply just ignore
> it because they 'are the biggest one'.
>
> I'm currious about you point of view.
>


Don't get me started on IPv6 crap... ;)

If you are interested, I don't want to spam the list with my Verizon
horror story, but you can read it here:
http://www.rollernet.us/wordpress/category/ipv6/

~Seth
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
Perhaps someone from HE can re-confirm their open peering policy for us?

If they aren't (open) anymore, I'm impressed by the bravado...

Deepak


----- Original Message -----
From: Marco Hogewoning <marcoh@marcoh.net>
To: Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Sent: Mon Oct 12 12:15:34 2009
Subject: Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering


On Oct 12, 2009, at 6:09 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:

> It is sad to see that networks which used to care about
> connectivity, peering, latency, etc., when they are small change
> their mind when they are "big". The most recent example is Cogent,
> an open peer who decided to turn down peers when they reached
> transit free status.
>
> I never thought HE would be one of those networks.


Do we have any proof it's HE rejecting peering or is it that Cogent en
Telia alike that are to proud to ask and think they can have a piece
of the pie as they did with v4 ?

MarcoH
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
On Oct 12, 2009, at 12:23 PM, Deepak Jain wrote:

> Perhaps someone from HE can re-confirm their open peering policy for
> us?
>
> If they aren't (open) anymore, I'm impressed by the bravado...

To be clear, I was not trying to imply that HE has a closed policy.
But I can see how people might think that given my Cogent example. My
apologies to HE.

And to be fair, I'm pounding on HE because they've always cared about
their customers. I expect Telia to care more about their own ego than
their customers' connectivity. So banging on them is nonproductive.


In summary: HE has worked tirelessly and mostly thanklessly to promote
v6. They have done more to bring v6 to the forefront than any other
network. But at the end of day, despite HE's valiant effort on v6, v6
has all the problems of v4 on the backbone, PLUS growing pains. Which
means it is difficult to rely on it, as v4 has enough dangers on its
own.

Anyway, I have confidence HE is trying to fix this. But I still think
the fact that it happened - whatever the reason - is a black eye for
the v6 "Internet", whatever the hell that is.

--
TTFN,
patrick


> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Marco Hogewoning <marcoh@marcoh.net>
> To: Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net>
> Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
> Sent: Mon Oct 12 12:15:34 2009
> Subject: Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering
>
>
> On Oct 12, 2009, at 6:09 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>
>> It is sad to see that networks which used to care about
>> connectivity, peering, latency, etc., when they are small change
>> their mind when they are "big". The most recent example is Cogent,
>> an open peer who decided to turn down peers when they reached
>> transit free status.
>>
>> I never thought HE would be one of those networks.
>
>
> Do we have any proof it's HE rejecting peering or is it that Cogent en
> Telia alike that are to proud to ask and think they can have a piece
> of the pie as they did with v4 ?
>
> MarcoH
>
>
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
sure would be nice if there was a diagnosis before the lynching
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
Just saw that telia <-> HE AND telia <-> Cogent got fixed. They are now
connected through C&W. Maybe someone got woken up by these messages :)

Cogent and HE is still broken but then again, ipv6@cogent is still beta.

regards, Igor
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
On Oct 12, 2009, at 12:52 PM, Randy Bush wrote:

> sure would be nice if there was a diagnosis before the lynching

If this happened in v4, would customers care 'why' it happened?
Obviously not.

Why should v6 be any different? It either is or is not production
ready. I'm interested in HE's view on that.

--
TTFN,
patrick
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
On October 12, 2009, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> In summary: HE has worked tirelessly and mostly thanklessly to promote
> v6. They have done more to bring v6 to the forefront than any other
> network. But at the end of day, despite HE's valiant effort on v6, v6
> has all the problems of v4 on the backbone, PLUS growing pains. Which
> means it is difficult to rely on it, as v4 has enough dangers on its
> own.
>

And don't forget.. Once IPv6 gets to the mainstream.. IP Reputation lists are
going to have a real fun time :) Spammers would love to see IPv6 in place I am
sure. ;) Routing IPv6 is going to require one heck of a thinking re-
adjustment. Would be nice to just leave IPv6 in the premises, and keep IPv4
for routing.

--
--
"Catch the Magic of Linux..."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Peddemors - President/CEO - LinuxMagic
Products, Services, Support and Development
Visit us at http://www.linuxmagic.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Wizard IT Company - For More Info http://www.wizard.ca
"LinuxMagic" is a Registered TradeMark of Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
604-589-0037 Beautiful British Columbia, Canada

This email and any electronic data contained are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed.
Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely
those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company.
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 07:06:37PM +0200, Igor Ybema wrote:
> Just saw that telia <-> HE AND telia <-> Cogent got fixed. They are now
> connected through C&W. Maybe someone got woken up by these messages :)
>
> Cogent and HE is still broken but then again, ipv6@cogent is still beta.

Cogent has never carried a full IPv6 table, and probably never will (or
at least, not for a REALLY long time). They aren't using any IPv6
transit, and will only turn up peering with a handful of large networks
as measured by their IPv4 peering stats. This isn't even close to
representative of the IPv6 routing table, so they're probably going to
continue to miss huge chunks of IPv6 for many years to come.

--
Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> On Oct 12, 2009, at 12:52 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>
>> sure would be nice if there was a diagnosis before the lynching
>
> If this happened in v4, would customers care 'why' it happened?
> Obviously not.

I suspect more NAT will become a better solution than migrating to IPv6
if/when runout becomes a problem because there's just not enough
visibility or providers that take it seriously enough for IPv6 to be a
viable solution. I try to do my part but it's a horrible pain.


> Why should v6 be any different? It either is or is not production
> ready. I'm interested in HE's view on that.
>

As far as HE goes, they're so pro-IPv6 I would be surprised if anything
intentionally bad was going on. I wish more providers had their attitude
towards IPv6.

~Seth
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 10:47 -0700, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> > On Oct 12, 2009, at 12:52 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> >
> >> sure would be nice if there was a diagnosis before the lynching
> >
> > If this happened in v4, would customers care 'why' it happened?
> > Obviously not.
>
> I suspect more NAT will become a better solution than migrating to IPv6
> if/when runout becomes a problem because there's just not enough
> visibility or providers that take it seriously enough for IPv6 to be a
> viable solution. I try to do my part but it's a horrible pain.
>

And then you have the hoards of DSLreports people screaming about how
they do not have a routeable IP address anymore, which is bad for
business, and then IPv6 comes about because the people *demand* it.
(although they do not necessarily know they are demanding that -- what
they are demanding is the ability to continue having publically
routeable IP addresses for their broadband connection.)

William
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
Michael Peddemors wrote:
> On October 12, 2009, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>> In summary: HE has worked tirelessly and mostly thanklessly to promote
>> v6. They have done more to bring v6 to the forefront than any other
>> network. But at the end of day, despite HE's valiant effort on v6, v6
>> has all the problems of v4 on the backbone, PLUS growing pains. Which
>> means it is difficult to rely on it, as v4 has enough dangers on its
>> own.
>>
>
> And don't forget.. Once IPv6 gets to the mainstream.. IP Reputation lists are
> going to have a real fun time :) Spammers would love to see IPv6 in place I am
> sure.

You seem to have concluded that blacklisting a prefix is much harder in
ipv6 than it is in v4...

> ;) Routing IPv6 is going to require one heck of a thinking re-
> adjustment. Would be nice to just leave IPv6 in the premises, and keep IPv4
> for routing.
>
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
On 12/10/09 10:25 -0700, Michael Peddemors wrote:
>On October 12, 2009, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>> In summary: HE has worked tirelessly and mostly thanklessly to promote
>> v6. They have done more to bring v6 to the forefront than any other
>> network. But at the end of day, despite HE's valiant effort on v6, v6
>> has all the problems of v4 on the backbone, PLUS growing pains. Which
>> means it is difficult to rely on it, as v4 has enough dangers on its
>> own.
>>
>
>And don't forget.. Once IPv6 gets to the mainstream.. IP Reputation lists are
>going to have a real fun time :) Spammers would love to see IPv6 in place I am
>sure. ;) Routing IPv6 is going to require one heck of a thinking re-
>adjustment. Would be nice to just leave IPv6 in the premises, and keep IPv4
>for routing.

Reputation lists will just be on the /64, /56 and /48 boundaries, rather
than IPv4 /32.

--
Dan White
BTC Broadband
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
Dan White wrote:
> Reputation lists will just be on the /64, /56 and /48 boundaries, rather
> than IPv4 /32.

And then people will scream because someone setup a layout that hands
out /128 addresses within a /64 pool.

Jack
Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy [ In reply to ]
Seth Mattinen wrote:

> If you are interested, I don't want to spam the list with my Verizon
> horror story, but you can read it here:
> http://www.rollernet.us/wordpress/category/ipv6/

At the risk of sounding like I'm piling on, I'm in the same basically
the same boat that Seth is, except that I do know who my account rep is
and have been in touch with him.

Verizon's policy has been related to me that they will not accept or
propogate any IPv6 route advertisements with prefix lengths longer than
/32. Full stop. So that even includes those of us that have /48 PI
space from ARIN that are direct customers of Verizon.

I've been told that Verizon is discussing this policy and whether it
should be updated, but until they update their policy to be in line with
the IPv6 Internet allocation/assignment policies from at least September
of 2006 (when ARIN assigned their first /48 from 2620:0::/23), if your
announcements are only longer than /32, you should be aware that Verizon
is completely unreachable for you - even if you are a Verizon customer
directly.

--
Jeff McAdams
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
Igor Ybema wrote:
> I recently noticed that there seems a peering issue on the ipv6 internet.
> As we all know hurricane is currently the largest ipv6 carrier. Other large
> carriers are now implementing ipv6 on their networks, like Cogent and Telia.
>
> However, due to some politics it seems that they are not peering with each
> other resulting in a broken ipv6 internet currently. I noticed this by using
> the looking glasses from telia and hurricane.

I'll spell it out for your entertainment.

Hurricane aggressively tries to solve connectivity problems, IPv4 or IPv6.

In the case of Cogent, they hilariously are trying to reduce peering
with Hurricane over time.

Hurricane has IPv4 peering with Cogent. Years ago this was at four
locations in the world, then this was at three locations in the world,
then two locations in the world. Why? Because over time when a BGP
session would go down for longer than 30 seconds, Cogent permanently
shut the session. Both Cogent and Hurricane have progressively lowered
the local preference and otherwise filtered the routes we receive from
each other to prevent the connections from saturating due to the size of
our networks and the number of prefixes we each announce.

These connections were a combination of OC12s in the US and public
peering in Europe. Hurricane repeatedly over the years has pushed to
replace the OC12s with atleast giges (if not 10GE), on the principle it
would be cheaper, conform to more of the hardware each of us uses, allow
us to remove legacy OC12 cards from the network, etc. Cogent hasn't.

Why?

Because even though they are content heavy and due to the routing tables
one might infer they don't have settlement free peering with all
networks, they don't want to help Hurricane in any way.

Ok, fine. Not everybody choses to operate their network this way,
usually most are more concerned about their customers, however hey who
am I to say whatever they view as their core mission isn't being met.

If you've been around long enough, you'd know that normally nobody talks
about peering publicly like this. Most of the core network operators
here could just infer what I told you above.

Then why would I write this post?

Because I want to set the record straight regarding Hurricane Electric's
IPv6 peering goals, and nothing in Cogent's case seems to get through to
them.

Oh, BTW, let me describe the special case of irony. If Cogent wanted to
ensure they weren't in a subservient role in IPv6 as they are for IPv4
(and I'm not talking about Hurricane, I'm talking about all the networks
they've ever had to pay or fight in one way or another), then they would
be working to have a complete IPv6 table by working with a player like
Hurricane which reduces their dependency on networks that will be
difficult with them, that is: be cooperative with them rather than give
them a huge amount of crap and try to torture them at each turn (i.e. in
order to get "peering" you need to buy these local loops, etc etc etc).

BTW, regarding the comments about 6to4, with Hurricane Electric you will
reach more of the IPv6 Internet, with lower latency than anybody else.

> I already asked hurricane about their point of view. They simply just ignore
> it because they 'are the biggest one'.

We don't ignore comments about connectivity, in fact quite the opposite.
We study each AS and which ASes are behind them. We work on getting
peering with the specific AS, in the case that they are unresponsive,
getting the ASes behind them.

Among the things we do to discuss peering: send email to any relevant
contacts, call them, contact them on IRC, send people to the relevant
conferences to seek them out specifically, send people to their offices,
etc.

So far we stop short of baking cakes, but hey...

Our goal is to provide as much connectivity to as many people as possible.

That might be our goal, however, not everybody's goal on the Internet is
to provide as much connectivity as possible for their customers.

Mike.
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
On October 12, 2009, Dan White wrote:
> Reputation lists will just be on the /64, /56 and /48 boundaries, rather
> than IPv4 /32.
>

IF Network Operators started advertising and routing /64 addresses, and
assuming there were email servers our there running MX records on IPv6,

http://eng.genius.com/blog/2009/09/14/email-on-ipv6/

for the spammers to send too, they would quickly adopt the idea of large
blocks of IPv6 Addresses. If you had to apply reputation to them
individually, it would make a much larger dataset to maintain.

If you look at for instance the number of IP's on RATS-DYNA and RATS-NOPTR,
(examples of IP's typically representative of DUL's) they have 65 Million IP's
in the database at /32 IPv4, just think what the numbers would be with IPv6.

Spammers could in theory be using a much larger set of routable IP's to send
from. Once NAT is out, it opens a huge can of worms to detect and maintain
the size of databases that would be needed to reflect this new space.

With 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 compared to 4,294,967,296 anyone who is trying
to build an effecient way to gather and store reputation, has their work cut
out for them.

Currently, maintaining the reputation of the IPv4 space is feasible, however
once we reach IPv6 numbers, it would almost require a model of registering
IP's for certain uses.

We have enough trouble getting current providers to even have whois delgation,
of who is using what part of their IPv4 spaces, I don't expect it to get any
easier with IPv6. Imagine the size of ACL lists?


--
--
"Catch the Magic of Linux..."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Peddemors - President/CEO - LinuxMagic
Products, Services, Support and Development
Visit us at http://www.linuxmagic.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Wizard IT Company - For More Info http://www.wizard.ca
"LinuxMagic" is a Registered TradeMark of Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
604-589-0037 Beautiful British Columbia, Canada

This email and any electronic data contained are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed.
Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely
those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company.
RE: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
No need for me to repeat what Mike has posted. I agree 100% with him on all
fronts. Mike and his team have gone out of their way to promote and support
IPv6 from the very beginning and I think everyone knows this. In the past,
I had some differences with Mike over legacy policies that Hurricane adopted
initially, but after spending time with him and explaining those issues, he
did everything in his power to correct them. I'd even say he went above and
beyond everyone's expectations.

I hope this issue gets resolved quickly. I've seen first hand the political
issues in v4 and I really hope we don't have a repeat of this in v6. There
are a handful of providers that have turned to a restrictive IPv6 policy (or
"must be existing peer in v4 to peer in v6 with us") and I find it
outrageous at this point in time.

Cogent, get with the program.

Regards,

Randy
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
Randy Epstein wrote:
> No need for me to repeat what Mike has posted. I agree 100% with him on all
> fronts. Mike and his team have gone out of their way to promote and support
> IPv6 from the very beginning and I think everyone knows this. In the past,
> I had some differences with Mike over legacy policies that Hurricane adopted
> initially, but after spending time with him and explaining those issues, he
> did everything in his power to correct them. I'd even say he went above and
> beyond everyone's expectations.
>
> I hope this issue gets resolved quickly. I've seen first hand the political
> issues in v4 and I really hope we don't have a repeat of this in v6. There
> are a handful of providers that have turned to a restrictive IPv6 policy (or
> "must be existing peer in v4 to peer in v6 with us") and I find it
> outrageous at this point in time.
>
> Cogent, get with the program.
>
> Regards,
>
> Randy
>
>
>

Cogent: You are absolutely insane. You are doing nothing but
alienating your customers and doing a disservice to IPv6 and the
internet as a whole.

You are publishing AAAA records for www.cogentco.com, which means that I
CANNOT reach it to even look at your looking glass. I send my prefixes
to 4436, 22822, and 6939 and you are not peering with any of them. Why
not peer, for FREE, with 6939? What could you possibly gain from NOT
doing this? HE is NOT going to buy transit from you (nor am I). Please
fix your policy.

-Dave
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Randy Epstein <repstein@chello.at> wrote:

> No need for me to repeat what Mike has posted. I agree 100% with him on
> all
> fronts. Mike and his team have gone out of their way to promote and
> support
> IPv6 from the very beginning and I think everyone knows this. In the past,
> I had some differences with Mike over legacy policies that Hurricane
> adopted
> initially, but after spending time with him and explaining those issues, he
> did everything in his power to correct them. I'd even say he went above
> and
> beyond everyone's expectations.
>
> I hope this issue gets resolved quickly. I've seen first hand the
> political
> issues in v4 and I really hope we don't have a repeat of this in v6. There
> are a handful of providers that have turned to a restrictive IPv6 policy
> (or
> "must be existing peer in v4 to peer in v6 with us") and I find it
> outrageous at this point in time.
>
> Cogent, get with the program.
>

*shrug* If Cogent wants to isolate itself from the rest of the Internet,
it's kinda their problem, right? I mean, it's their network, if they don't
want to play with the rest of us, they don't have to. They just won't
have much to offer their customers if they decide not to play along.

There's no mandate about universal connectivity; when you buy service
from a provider, you select which provider to buy from based on the
breadth and scope of services you desire. There may be a huge
customer base for Cogent that fears the rest of the IPv6 Internet,
and doesn't want to connect to it. If there's enough of a revenue
stream from them to keep Cogent afloat, more power to them, I
applaud them for discovering an alternative business model.

I, for one, don't particularly believe in the utility of such a service,
and wouldn't pay for it, but that doesn't mean there aren't a lot
of frightened, paranoid people who really do want to play in a
sheltered walled garden, kept apart from everyone else--and if
Cogent can make a business out of servicing them, more power
to them. I just wouldn't put my salary on the line banking on that
business model panning out.*


> Regards,
>
> Randy
>


Matt

*note, however, that I also opted to stay in college in 1991, rather than
join Cisco because I felt they did not have a workable business model;
in 1995, I rejected Mosaic Communications, because the idea of trying
to compete with a freely downloadable browser seemed like business
suicide; and I rejected Google's offer letter in early 2000, because it
was clear that trying to compete with altavista by trying to support a
company off revenues from search advertising was completely ludicrous.
Given that track record, some may take my scathing indictment of
Cogent's walled garden approach to IPv6 as a clear indicator of future
earnings potential. :/
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
> Cogent: You are absolutely insane. You are doing nothing but
> alienating your customers and doing a disservice to IPv6 and the
> internet as a whole.
>
> You are publishing AAAA records for www.cogentco.com, which means
> that I CANNOT reach it to even look at your looking glass. I send
> my prefixes to 4436, 22822, and 6939 and you are not peering with
> any of them. Why not peer, for FREE, with 6939? What could you
> possibly gain from NOT doing this? HE is NOT going to buy transit
> from you (nor am I). Please fix your policy.


May I suggest to vote with your feet and take your business somewhere
else. They obviously are not interested in you, your traffic or your
money.

MarcoH
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
Marco Hogewoning wrote:
>> Cogent: You are absolutely insane. You are doing nothing but
>> alienating your customers and doing a disservice to IPv6 and the
>> internet as a whole.
>>
>> You are publishing AAAA records for www.cogentco.com, which means
>> that I CANNOT reach it to even look at your looking glass. I send my
>> prefixes to 4436, 22822, and 6939 and you are not peering with any of
>> them. Why not peer, for FREE, with 6939? What could you possibly
>> gain from NOT doing this? HE is NOT going to buy transit from you
>> (nor am I). Please fix your policy.
>
>
> May I suggest to vote with your feet and take your business somewhere
> else. They obviously are not interested in you, your traffic or your
> money.
>
> MarcoH
>
Already done. All they are doing is continuing to provide fodder for
engineers to tell their bosses why to NOT consider 174 transit when it's
brought up.

-Dave
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
> Matt
>
> *note, however, that I also opted to stay in college in 1991, rather than
> join Cisco because I felt they did not have a workable business model;
> in 1995, I rejected Mosaic Communications, because the idea of trying
> to compete with a freely downloadable browser seemed like business
> suicide; and I rejected Google's offer letter in early 2000, because it
> was clear that trying to compete with altavista by trying to support a
> company off revenues from search advertising was completely ludicrous.
> Given that track record, some may take my scathing indictment of
> Cogent's walled garden approach to IPv6 as a clear indicator of future
> earnings potential. :/

*rofl*


*cries*

That was good!

1 2 3  View All