Was part of my first peering spat, probably 95/96 since then many more, couple even big enough they made nanog/ industry news, end of day they are all the same. If you need to reach every where have more then one provider, it's good practice anyway, a single cust or even a bunch of cust are NOT going to influence peer decisions, so build your network so any 2 sides not playing not, will not impact you cust's, so at least they don't have reason to complain to you.
-jim On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:42 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman <mharde...@ipifony.com > wrote: > An excellent point. Nobody would tolerate this in IPv4 land. Those > disputes tended to end in days and weeks (sometimes months), but not years. > > That said, as IPv6 is finally gaining traction, I suspect we’ll be seeing > less tolerance for this behavior. > > > > On Jan 21, 2016, at 8:30 PM, Matthew Kaufman <matt...@matthew.at> wrote: > > > > > > > >> On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:05 PM, Ca By <cb.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Brandon Butterworth < > bran...@rd.bbc.co.uk> > >> wrote: > >> > >>>>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:07 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman < > >>> mharde...@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) > >
