t the traffic flow out to one of their peer points where another
>>> peer DOES peer with Google IPv6 and get you in?
>>>
>>> Isn't that how the Internet is suppose to work?
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/24/16 2:43 PM, Damien Burke wrote:
>>&
of ipv6 war?
>>>>
>>>> -Original Message-
>>>> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ian Clark
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 10:25 AM
>>>> To: NANOG
>>>> Subject: Cogent & Google
i suspect that what is goiing on here is actually a good sign of ipv6
becoming commercially real. for the last couple of decades, ipv6 has
been connected via tunnels, an unusual amount of free peering,
packets carried by donkeys over the mountains, anything that worked.
as ipv6 starts to become
t;>> Not sure. I got the same thing today as well.
>>>
>>> Is this some kind of ipv6 war?
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ian Clark
>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 10:25 AM
>>> T
> Show me a single connection to Cogent for which Cogent isn't being
> paid.
i suspect none of att|ntt|l3|... pay cogent
On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 16:51:55 -0500, "Patrick W. Gilmore" said:
> Or do you think Cogent is paying all of them? That is a possibility, but it
> means that Cogent is not getting paid - by definition.
All depends how creative their accountants are... :)
pgpW8dCKWjsxu.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Feb 24, 2016, at 4:48 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 15:48:22 -0500, Patrick W. Gilmore
> wrote:
>> And Ricky is wrong, the vast majority of prefixes Cogent routes have zero
>> dollars behind them. Cogent gets paid by customers, not peers. (At least not
>> the big ones.)
>
> S
On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 15:48:22 -0500, Patrick W. Gilmore
wrote:
And Ricky is wrong, the vast majority of prefixes Cogent routes have
zero dollars behind them. Cogent gets paid by customers, not peers. (At
least not the big ones.)
Show me a single connection to Cogent for which Cogent isn't b
> From nanog-boun...@nanog.org Wed Feb 24 21:03:17 2016
> In one's situation, does Cogent have enough pros to overcome the
> cons? Same for HE or any other carrier.
Who cares, with everyone trying to be IPv6 transit free and covering it
with a settlement free peering policy it may accidentally tu
ammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> Midwest-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
> - Original Message -
>
> From: "Patrick W. Gilmore"
> To: "NANOG list"
> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 2:27:21 PM
> Subject
- Original Message -
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore"
To: "NANOG list"
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 2:27:21 PM
Subject: Re: Cogent & Google IPv6
Agreed on all points. “Double dipping” is not morally abhorrent, or even
slightly slimy. However, Cogent customers paid
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> Midwest-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
> - Original Message -
>
> From: "Ricky Beam"
> To: "Matt Hoppes"
> Cc: "NANOG"
&g
om
>
> Midwest-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
> - Original Message -
>
> From: "Patrick W. Gilmore"
> To: "NANOG list"
> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 2:12:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Cogent & Google IPv6
>
> Are HE &
om: "Ricky Beam"
To: "Matt Hoppes"
Cc: "NANOG"
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 2:18:24 PM
Subject: Re: Cogent & Google IPv6
On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 14:46:56 -0500, Matt Hoppes
wrote:
> Isn't that how the Internet is suppose to work?
Perhaps. Bu
. Gilmore
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 12:12 PM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Re: Cogent & Google IPv6
Are HE & Google the new L3 & FT?
Nah, L3 would never have baked Cogent a cake. :)
Shall we start a pool? Only problem is, should the pool be “who will disconnect
from Cogent next?” o
On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 14:46:56 -0500, Matt Hoppes
wrote:
Isn't that how the Internet is suppose to work?
Perhaps. But that's not how *Cogent* works. They have a very idiotic view
of "Tier 1". They have no transit connections with anyone; someone is
paying them for every prefix they accept.
w.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com
- Original Message -
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore"
To: "NANOG list"
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 2:12:07 PM
Subject: Re: Cogent & Google IPv6
Are HE & Google the new L3 & FT?
Nah, L3 would never h
2:43 PM, Damien Burke wrote:
>>
>>> Not sure. I got the same thing today as well.
>>>
>>> Is this some kind of ipv6 war?
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ian Clark
>>
[mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ian Clark
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 10:25 AM
>> To: NANOG
>> Subject: Cogent & Google IPv6
>>
>> Anyone know what's actually going on here? We received the following
>> information from the two
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ian Clark
>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 10:25 AM
>>> To: NANOG
>>> Subject: Cogent & Google IPv6
>>>
>>> Anyone know what
ome kind of ipv6 war?
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ian Clark
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 10:25 AM
>> To: NANOG
>> Subject: Cogent & Google IPv6
>>
>> Anyone know what'
wrote:
Not sure. I got the same thing today as well.
Is this some kind of ipv6 war?
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ian Clark
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 10:25 AM
To: NANOG
Subject: Cogent & Google IPv6
Anyone know what'
Not sure. I got the same thing today as well.
Is this some kind of ipv6 war?
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ian Clark
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 10:25 AM
To: NANOG
Subject: Cogent & Google IPv6
Anyone know what's actually
Anyone know what's actually going on here? We received the following
information from the two of them, and this just started a week or so ago.
*From Cogent, the transit provider for a branch office of ours:*
Dear Cogent Customer,
Thank you for contacting Cogent Customer Support for information
24 matches
Mail list logo
