I think what’s stopping this from being a bigger issue is that neither network has many (if any) single-homed customers that don’t connect on IPv4, which as mentioned previously isn’t partitioned. If there were many IPv6 only eyeballs single-homed behind each network then it would be a bigger issue.
Regards, Marty Strong -------------------------------------- CloudFlare - AS13335 Network Engineer ma...@cloudflare.com +44 7584 906 055 smartflare (Skype) http://www.peeringdb.com/view.php?asn=13335 > On 6 Dec 2015, at 18:38, joel jaeggli <joe...@bogus.com> wrote: > > On 12/5/15 9:37 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >>> On Dec 4, 2015, at 17:43 , Randy Bush <ra...@psg.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Or, if you feel that Cogent's stubborn insistence on partitioning the >>>> global v6 internet >>> >>> if A does not peer with B, >>> then for all A and B >>> they are evil partitioners? >>> >>> can we lower the rhetoric? >>> >>> randy >> >> Does that remain true for values of A where A is willing to peer with >> B, but B refuses to peer with A? > > These are (mostly) reasonable business decisions engaged by (mostly) > reasonable actors. both providers have tools available to them to > address the partition unilaterally as one of them does in ipv4 where > they so inclined. > > Neither provider has significant numbers of single homed eyeballs > marooned behind them which would be bad. > >> Owen >> > >
