Mailing List Archive

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:

> You get some substantial wins for the non-TE case by being able to fix
> the legacy cruft. For instance, AS1312 advertises 4 prefixes:
> 63.164.28.0/22, 128.173.0.0/16, 192.70.187.0/24, 198.82.0.0/16
> but on the IPv6 side we've just got 2001:468:c80::/48.
>
> And we're currently advertising *more* address space in one /48 than we
> are in the 4 IPv4 prefixes - we have a large chunk of wireless network that
> is currently NAT'ed into the 172.31 space because we simply ran out of room
> in our 2 /16s - but we give those users globally routed IPv6 addresses.


I suggest you're not yet doing enough IPv6 traffic to have to care
about IPv6 TE.

2c,



Adrian

Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
>
>> You get some substantial wins for the non-TE case by being able to fix
>> the legacy cruft. For instance, AS1312 advertises 4 prefixes:
>> 63.164.28.0/22, 128.173.0.0/16, 192.70.187.0/24, 198.82.0.0/16
>> but on the IPv6 side we've just got 2001:468:c80::/48.
>>
>> And we're currently advertising *more* address space in one /48 than we
>> are in the 4 IPv4 prefixes - we have a large chunk of wireless network that
>> is currently NAT'ed into the 172.31 space because we simply ran out of room
>> in our 2 /16s - but we give those users globally routed IPv6 addresses.
>
>
> I suggest you're not yet doing enough IPv6 traffic to have to care
> about IPv6 TE.

I think he was pointing out that extra routes due to "slow start"
policies should not be a factor in v6. My guess is that is about
half of the "extra" routes announced today, the other half being
TE routes.

Speaking of TE, it's going to be interesting to see how we deal with
that. We can't expect everyone to accept any /48 that gets announced.
I'm still waiting for the first time someone blows up the Internet
by announcing all 65536 /48's in their /32. I'm amazed it hasn't
happened yet.

Stricter use of the IRR might help if there wasn't rampant auto
proxy registering going on. RPKI may be the answer since that
can't be proxy-registered. That would at least mitigate router
bugs and carelessness. The issue of what intentional TE routes
are seen as "acceptable" is another issue.

- Kevin

Kevin Loch wrote:
> Adrian Chadd wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
>>
>>> You get some substantial wins for the non-TE case by being able to fix
>>> the legacy cruft. For instance, AS1312 advertises 4 prefixes:
>>> 63.164.28.0/22, 128.173.0.0/16, 192.70.187.0/24, 198.82.0.0/16
>>> but on the IPv6 side we've just got 2001:468:c80::/48.
>>>
>>> And we're currently advertising *more* address space in one /48 than we
>>> are in the 4 IPv4 prefixes - we have a large chunk of wireless
>>> network that
>>> is currently NAT'ed into the 172.31 space because we simply ran out
>>> of room
>>> in our 2 /16s - but we give those users globally routed IPv6 addresses.
>>
>>
>> I suggest you're not yet doing enough IPv6 traffic to have to care
>> about IPv6 TE.
>
> I think he was pointing out that extra routes due to "slow start"
> policies should not be a factor in v6. My guess is that is about
> half of the "extra" routes announced today, the other half being
> TE routes.
>
> Speaking of TE, it's going to be interesting to see how we deal with
> that. We can't expect everyone to accept any /48 that gets announced.
> I'm still waiting for the first time someone blows up the Internet
> by announcing all 65536 /48's in their /32. I'm amazed it hasn't
> happened yet.
>
> Stricter use of the IRR might help if there wasn't rampant auto
> proxy registering going on. RPKI may be the answer since that
> can't be proxy-registered. That would at least mitigate router
> bugs and carelessness. The issue of what intentional TE routes
> are seen as "acceptable" is another issue.
>

I would love to see TE die a painful death. Maybe someone announcing
65536 routes will bring it to a swift end.

~Seth

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 00:46:00 EDT, Kevin Loch said:
> Adrian Chadd wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 13, 2009, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> >
> >> You get some substantial wins for the non-TE case by being able to fix
> >> the legacy cruft. For instance, AS1312 advertises 4 prefixes:
> >> 63.164.28.0/22, 128.173.0.0/16, 192.70.187.0/24, 198.82.0.0/16
> >> but on the IPv6 side we've just got 2001:468:c80::/48.
> >>
> >> And we're currently advertising *more* address space in one /48 than we
> >> are in the 4 IPv4 prefixes - we have a large chunk of wireless network that
> >> is currently NAT'ed into the 172.31 space because we simply ran out of room
> >> in our 2 /16s - but we give those users globally routed IPv6 addresses.
> >
> >
> > I suggest you're not yet doing enough IPv6 traffic to have to care
> > about IPv6 TE.
>
> I think he was pointing out that extra routes due to "slow start"
> policies should not be a factor in v6. My guess is that is about
> half of the "extra" routes announced today, the other half being
> TE routes.

Exactly. We have 4 prefixes only because we got slow-started and similar
hysterical raisins, we don't use those for TE at all. If we wanted to do any
globally visible TE that actually made a difference, we'd have to announce a
more-specific out of one of the /16s anyhow, since that's where all our traffic
generators/sinks are (and probably a matching more-specific out of our v6 /48).
So we're always going to have 4+N on the IPv4 and 1+N on the IPv6 side.

(And if we'd gotten more address space for that wireless net, we'd be at
5+N rather than 4+N).

On 13/10/2009, at 5:46 PM, Kevin Loch wrote:

> I think he was pointing out that extra routes due to "slow start"
> policies should not be a factor in v6. My guess is that is about
> half of the "extra" routes announced today, the other half being
> TE routes.


You can pretty easily figure out how many advertised prefixes are
intentional de-aggregates, and you can get a fairly good idea as to
how many of them are for TE as well I expect, by looking for different
AS paths.

Someone mentioned some slides earlier in this thread by Vince Fuller
at APRICOT early '07 that from memory have pretty good data on this.

--
Nathan Ward

On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 12:41 PM, Mike Leber <mleber@he.net> wrote:
...

> 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...
>

And tonight we saw in public that even that path is being attempted:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/77519640@N00/4031434206/

(and yes, it was yummy and enjoyed by all at the peering BoF!)

So Cogent...won't you please make nice with HE.net and get back
together again? ^_^

Matt
(speaking for neither party, but very happy to eat cake nonetheless)

On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 10:53:17PM -0700, Matthew Petach wrote:
> And tonight we saw in public that even that path is being attempted:
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/77519640@N00/4031434206/
>
> (and yes, it was yummy and enjoyed by all at the peering BoF!)
>
> So Cogent...won't you please make nice with HE.net and get back
> together again? ^_^
>
> Matt
> (speaking for neither party, but very happy to eat cake nonetheless)

"Cogent Pleas IPv6"... for some reason that "cake typo" is even funnier
than the correct version. :)

--
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)

On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 12:13 AM, Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net>wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 10:53:17PM -0700, Matthew Petach wrote:
> > And tonight we saw in public that even that path is being attempted:
> >
> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/77519640@N00/4031434206/
> >
> > (and yes, it was yummy and enjoyed by all at the peering BoF!)
> >
> > So Cogent...won't you please make nice with HE.net and get back
> > together again? ^_^
> >
> > Matt
> > (speaking for neither party, but very happy to eat cake nonetheless)
>
> "Cogent Pleas IPv6"... for some reason that "cake typo" is even funnier
> than the correct version. :)
>
>
And now even better shots of the cake have been forthcoming from
people. :)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/77519640@N00/4031195041/

(I was all the way at the far other end of the room taking notes on the
laptop,
so I never got to see the cake intact at all--all the photos are from others
who
were closer to the cake, and got to see it in its pristine glory).

Fortunately, I did get to partake in the eating of it. ^_^

Matt
(This cake is great, it's so delicious and moist...* ;)



*http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/e/ellen_mclain/still_alive.html

please full support huricane !

De-peer your ipv6 peering cogent/telia or max prepend it.

!





Le mercredi 21 octobre 2009 à 05:00 -0700, Matthew Petach a écrit :
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 12:13 AM, Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net>wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 10:53:17PM -0700, Matthew Petach wrote:
> > > And tonight we saw in public that even that path is being attempted:
> > >
> > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/77519640@N00/4031434206/
> > >
> > > (and yes, it was yummy and enjoyed by all at the peering BoF!)
> > >
> > > So Cogent...won't you please make nice with HE.net and get back
> > > together again? ^_^
> > >
> > > Matt
> > > (speaking for neither party, but very happy to eat cake nonetheless)
> >
> > "Cogent Pleas IPv6"... for some reason that "cake typo" is even funnier
> > than the correct version. :)
> >
> >
> And now even better shots of the cake have been forthcoming from
> people. :)
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/77519640@N00/4031195041/
>
> (I was all the way at the far other end of the room taking notes on the
> laptop,
> so I never got to see the cake intact at all--all the photos are from others
> who
> were closer to the cake, and got to see it in its pristine glory).
>
> Fortunately, I did get to partake in the eating of it. ^_^
>
> Matt
> (This cake is great, it's so delicious and moist...* ;)
>
>
>
> *http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/e/ellen_mclain/still_alive.html
>

Please don't break existing connectivity in an effort to show support
for Hurricane.

That's going in the wrong direction and it doesn't help the users of
the internet, your customers,
or ours.

Please do continue to, or start peering with Hurricane.

The internet works best when people peer. Breaking or damaging that in
any way is not
helping any of our customers and it is contrary to Hurricane's desire.

We appreciate the intended message of support, but, it's most
important to preserve
functionality for all of our customers.

Thanks,

Owen DeLong
IPv6 Evangelist
Hurricane Electric

On Oct 22, 2009, at 5:08 AM, Frédéric wrote:

>
> please full support huricane !
>
> De-peer your ipv6 peering cogent/telia or max prepend it.
>
> !
>
>
>
>
>
> Le mercredi 21 octobre 2009 à 05:00 -0700, Matthew Petach a écrit :
>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 12:13 AM, Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net
>> >wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 10:53:17PM -0700, Matthew Petach wrote:
>>>> And tonight we saw in public that even that path is being
>>>> attempted:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/77519640@N00/4031434206/
>>>>
>>>> (and yes, it was yummy and enjoyed by all at the peering BoF!)
>>>>
>>>> So Cogent...won't you please make nice with HE.net and get back
>>>> together again? ^_^
>>>>
>>>> Matt
>>>> (speaking for neither party, but very happy to eat cake
>>>> nonetheless)
>>>
>>> "Cogent Pleas IPv6"... for some reason that "cake typo" is even
>>> funnier
>>> than the correct version. :)
>>>
>>>
>> And now even better shots of the cake have been forthcoming from
>> people. :)
>>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/77519640@N00/4031195041/
>>
>> (I was all the way at the far other end of the room taking notes on
>> the
>> laptop,
>> so I never got to see the cake intact at all--all the photos are
>> from others
>> who
>> were closer to the cake, and got to see it in its pristine glory).
>>
>> Fortunately, I did get to partake in the eating of it. ^_^
>>
>> Matt
>> (This cake is great, it's so delicious and moist...* ;)
>>
>>
>>
>> *http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/e/ellen_mclain/still_alive.html
>>
>

yes of course, sorry my wrong use of english.


Le jeudi 22 octobre 2009 à 05:19 -0700, Owen DeLong a écrit :
> Please don't break existing connectivity in an effort to show support
> for Hurricane.
>
> That's going in the wrong direction and it doesn't help the users of
> the internet, your customers,
> or ours.
>
> Please do continue to, or start peering with Hurricane.
>
> The internet works best when people peer. Breaking or damaging that in
> any way is not
> helping any of our customers and it is contrary to Hurricane's desire.
>
> We appreciate the intended message of support, but, it's most
> important to preserve
> functionality for all of our customers.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Owen DeLong
> IPv6 Evangelist
> Hurricane Electric
>
> On Oct 22, 2009, at 5:08 AM, Frédéric wrote:
>
> >
> > please full support huricane !
> >
> > De-peer your ipv6 peering cogent/telia or max prepend it.
> >
> > !
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Le mercredi 21 octobre 2009 à 05:00 -0700, Matthew Petach a écrit :
> >> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 12:13 AM, Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net
> >> >wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 10:53:17PM -0700, Matthew Petach wrote:
> >>>> And tonight we saw in public that even that path is being
> >>>> attempted:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/77519640@N00/4031434206/
> >>>>
> >>>> (and yes, it was yummy and enjoyed by all at the peering BoF!)
> >>>>
> >>>> So Cogent...won't you please make nice with HE.net and get back
> >>>> together again? ^_^
> >>>>
> >>>> Matt
> >>>> (speaking for neither party, but very happy to eat cake
> >>>> nonetheless)
> >>>
> >>> "Cogent Pleas IPv6"... for some reason that "cake typo" is even
> >>> funnier
> >>> than the correct version. :)
> >>>
> >>>
> >> And now even better shots of the cake have been forthcoming from
> >> people. :)
> >>
> >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/77519640@N00/4031195041/
> >>
> >> (I was all the way at the far other end of the room taking notes on
> >> the
> >> laptop,
> >> so I never got to see the cake intact at all--all the photos are
> >> from others
> >> who
> >> were closer to the cake, and got to see it in its pristine glory).
> >>
> >> Fortunately, I did get to partake in the eating of it. ^_^
> >>
> >> Matt
> >> (This cake is great, it's so delicious and moist...* ;)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> *http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/e/ellen_mclain/still_alive.html
> >>
> >
>
>

hello

nobody has to peer with some operator for free. they are simply trading
internet services. they do not have to believe in FREE (as in price)
internet connectivity.. if they peered you, you would decrease the price
of the products even more and more...

ask cogentco (as174) for paid peering. they will give you nice paid
peering or ip transit offer that you can use for both ipv4 and ipv6.

for example i would assume they would be OK charging he.net (as6939) 5
usd cent per megabit.

you need to understand that you are never going to become tier1 without
support from as174. they are currently cheapest and they are okay with
dual homing too. think like united nations security council.

you must think twice; are you gaining any profit by segmenting
world-wide internet? or are you loosing prospective single-homing
customers because you lack connectivity to as174 clients?

we must think big. asking for a money is OKay while begging for FREE
service is not... operating NOC and backbone has some expenses that
henet wouldnt understand with their rented links. cogentco bear much
more expenses than henet

i am not here to insult henet but i honestly think that they are
contemptible... just like google's peering decision makers.

sir! if you have become big content/eyeball operator, doesnt mean that
every operator in the industry have to respect your tier-1 policy and
give you their services for free. thats the thing henet and google
couldnt understand. think like UNSC and you will understand

even USA can not do anything they want in the world, as RU has voting
right, too.

TL;DR; instead of crying here and begging for free service. send real
representatives that could negotiate the money you would pay.

bye

Think twice before asking the largest global IPv6 network as measured by
prefixes announced to pay Cogent for peering.

Also what’s with Telia here?

Best regards
August Yang

On 2022-08-11 09:46, VOLKAN KIRIK wrote:
> hello
>
> nobody has to peer with some operator for free. they are simply
> trading internet services. they do not have to believe in FREE (as in
> price) internet connectivity.. if they peered you, you would decrease
> the price of the products even more and more...
>
> ask cogentco (as174) for paid peering. they will give you nice paid
> peering or ip transit offer that you can use for both ipv4 and ipv6.
>
> for example i would assume they would be OK charging he.net (as6939) 5
> usd cent per megabit.
>
> you need to understand that you are never going to become tier1
> without support from as174. they are currently cheapest and they are
> okay with dual homing too. think like united nations security council.
>
> you must think twice; are you gaining any profit by segmenting
> world-wide internet? or are you loosing prospective single-homing
> customers because you lack connectivity to as174 clients?
>
> we must think big. asking for a money is OKay while begging for FREE
> service is not... operating NOC and backbone has some expenses that
> henet wouldnt understand with their rented links. cogentco bear much
> more expenses than henet
>
> i am not here to insult henet but i honestly think that they are
> contemptible... just like google's peering decision makers.
>
> sir! if you have become big content/eyeball operator, doesnt mean that
> every operator in the industry have to respect your tier-1 policy and
> give you their services for free. thats the thing henet and google
> couldnt understand. think like UNSC and you will understand
>
> even USA can not do anything they want in the world, as RU has voting
> right, too.
>
> TL;DR; instead of crying here and begging for free service. send real
> representatives that could negotiate the money you would pay.
>
> bye

* volkirik@gmail.com (VOLKAN KIRIK) [Thu 11 Aug 2022, 15:52 CEST]:
>hello

You're replying to a thread from 2009. Please advise.


-- Niels.

Once upon a time, Niels Bakker <niels=nanog@bakker.net> said:
> * volkirik@gmail.com (VOLKAN KIRIK) [Thu 11 Aug 2022, 15:52 CEST]:
> >hello
>
> You're replying to a thread from 2009. Please advise.

Maybe they're a Cogent sales rep that, when trying snipe a customer's
customer, got push-back on "can I get to Google and HE on IPv6 on your
circuit?".
--
Chris Adams <cma@cmadams.net>

the companies are here to trade, charge prices for their services.... so
why blame cogent for doing what they supposed to be doing?

why did hurricane stop BGP tunnel service? and started asking for 500
usd/month for peering? expense of BGP servers? or did they realize ipv6
prefixes does not cost MRC, so their network peers are not serious business.

why did Google start charging for cloud gigabytes?

if he.net opens free BGP tunnel service back; and also announce full
transit routes on IXPs, thats just zero (payback)...

if they provide free ip transit to everyone; I would think that cogent
should provide free network access to them...

if google doesnt charge for traffic in cloud services, then they will be
largest in my eyes.

if cogent asks for a price, then they have to pay (to become tier1)...
simple as that. or they could stay as tier-2 as long as they want. thats
called free as in freedom. not as in price.

*doesnt level3 pay comcast money for paid-peering?*

building eyeball network, enabling fiber connectivity in buildings has
much more meaning to me...

so honestly i am fine with segmented ipv6 internet. i would just not
prefer he.net in my IP transit blend, as i do not have to respect crying
beggars.... and i could choose telia+cogent.

he.net guys are just charging you money for dumping your traffic in IX
Points, that you can do yourself, be eyeball or content network..

btw, losts of useless prefixes... think an asn has 1000 ipv6 prefixes
but less than 1 ge traffic, while there are networks exceeding 10ge with
just one prefix. ipv6 nat is spreading. just like ipv4 nat.

could you analyze traffic amount of ASNs? no. then dont fuckin call them
largest or i will kick your monkey ass.

i am the god!


11.08.2022 17:01 tarihinde August Yang yazd?:
> Think twice before asking the largest global IPv6 network as measured
> by prefixes announced to pay Cogent for peering.
>
> Also what’s with Telia here?
>
> Best regards
> August Yang
>
> On 2022-08-11 09:46, VOLKAN KIRIK wrote:
>> hello
>>
>> nobody has to peer with some operator for free. they are simply
>> trading internet services. they do not have to believe in FREE (as in
>> price) internet connectivity.. if they peered you, you would decrease
>> the price of the products even more and more...
>>
>> ask cogentco (as174) for paid peering. they will give you nice paid
>> peering or ip transit offer that you can use for both ipv4 and ipv6.
>>
>> for example i would assume they would be OK charging he.net (as6939) 5
>> usd cent per megabit.
>>
>> you need to understand that you are never going to become tier1
>> without support from as174. they are currently cheapest and they are
>> okay with dual homing too. think like united nations security council.
>>
>> you must think twice; are you gaining any profit by segmenting
>> world-wide internet? or are you loosing prospective single-homing
>> customers because you lack connectivity to as174 clients?
>>
>> we must think big. asking for a money is OKay while begging for FREE
>> service is not... operating NOC and backbone has some expenses that
>> henet wouldnt understand with their rented links. cogentco bear much
>> more expenses than henet
>>
>> i am not here to insult henet but i honestly think that they are
>> contemptible... just like google's peering decision makers.
>>
>> sir! if you have become big content/eyeball operator, doesnt mean that
>> every operator in the industry have to respect your tier-1 policy and
>> give you their services for free. thats the thing henet and google
>> couldnt understand. think like UNSC and you will understand
>>
>> even USA can not do anything they want in the world, as RU has voting
>> right, too.
>>
>> TL;DR; instead of crying here and begging for free service. send real
>> representatives that could negotiate the money you would pay.
>>
>> bye

[.Removing peering@he.net from this because there's no reason to spam them.]


Matt Harris|VP of Infrastructure
816-256-5446|Direct
Looking for help?
Helpdesk|Email Support
We build customized end-to-end technology solutions powered by NetFire Cloud.
On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 9:21 AM VOLKAN KIRIK <volkirik@gmail.com> wrote:

> the companies are here to trade, charge prices for their services.... so
> why blame cogent for doing what they supposed to be doing?
>
> why did hurricane stop BGP tunnel service? and started asking for 500
> usd/month for peering? expense of BGP servers? or did they realize ipv6
> prefixes does not cost MRC, so their network peers are not serious business.
>
> why did Google start charging for cloud gigabytes?
>
> if he.net opens free BGP tunnel service back; and also announce full
> transit routes on IXPs, thats just zero (payback)...
>
> if they provide free ip transit to everyone; I would think that cogent
> should provide free network access to them...
>
> if google doesnt charge for traffic in cloud services, then they will be
> largest in my eyes.
>
> if cogent asks for a price, then they have to pay (to become tier1)...
> simple as that. or they could stay as tier-2 as long as they want. thats
> called free as in freedom. not as in price.
>
In reality "tier 1" vs "tier 2" is about as meaningful as not at all. At
the end of the day, building a network has a variety of costs associated
with it. Some folks bury fiber, and some folks lease it from them. Some
folks peer on route servers at popular exchanges, and others don't. When
customers are seeking transit services, they go with a provider who is
on-net where it counts for them, can provide the capacity they need at a
reasonable price, and often also consider quality of that company's
services and reputation.

> *doesnt level3 pay comcast money for paid-peering?*
>
> building eyeball network, enabling fiber connectivity in buildings has
> much more meaning to me...
>
> so honestly i am fine with segmented ipv6 internet. i would just not
> prefer he.net in my IP transit blend, as i do not have to respect crying
> beggars.... and i could choose telia+cogent.
>
Many folks avoid Cogent for a variety of reasons, but in general their
policies towards congestion and their marketing practices have, at various
times, caused large segments of the community to speak up.

> he.net guys are just charging you money for dumping your traffic in IX
> Points, that you can do yourself, be eyeball or content network..
>
Can you prove in any meaningful way that this is less optimal or even
substantively different from what anyone who provides full table transit
service does?

> btw, losts of useless prefixes... think an asn has 1000 ipv6 prefixes but
> less than 1 ge traffic, while there are networks exceeding 10ge with just
> one prefix. ipv6 nat is spreading. just like ipv4 nat.
>
What? IPv6 NAT? Please provide data to support the claim that substantial
numbers of people are adopting NAT for IPv6?

> could you analyze traffic amount of ASNs? no. then dont fuckin call them
> largest or i will kick your monkey ass.
>
i am the god!
>
This is not appropriate behavior for NANOG's mailing list, imho. I'm not
sure what makes you think utilizing words like this is going to help your
point, but I guarantee it isn't.
And for the record, lots of folks here analyze traffic by AS source.

- Matt

The reply must've been stuck in Cogent's network for the past 13 years.

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+chris.wright=commnetbroadband.com@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Chris Adams
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2022 10:17 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering

Once upon a time, Niels Bakker <niels=nanog@bakker.net> said:
> * volkirik@gmail.com (VOLKAN KIRIK) [Thu 11 Aug 2022, 15:52 CEST]:
> >hello
>
> You're replying to a thread from 2009. Please advise.

Maybe they're a Cogent sales rep that, when trying snipe a customer's customer, got push-back on "can I get to Google and HE on IPv6 on your circuit?".
--
Chris Adams <cma@cmadams.net>