The reply must've been stuck in Cogent's network for the past 13 years.
Chris
-Original Message-
From: NANOG 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 u
Once upon a time, Niels Bakker said:
> * volki...@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 H
* volki...@gmail.com (VOLKAN KIRIK) [Thu 11 Aug 2022, 15:52 CEST]:
hello
You're replying to a thread from 2009. Please advise.
-- Niels.
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
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 peer
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
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.
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
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 10:53:17PM -0700, Matthew Petach
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 12:13 AM, Richard A Steenbergen
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/77519...@n00/4031434206/
> >
> > (and yes, it was yummy an
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/77519...@n00/4031434206/
>
> (and yes, it was yummy and enjoyed by all at the peering BoF!)
>
> So Cogent...won't you please mak
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 12:41 PM, Mike Leber 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 beh
On 10/14/09 8:11 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Typing less does not mean you are actually thinking. You should try the
latter before your next pithy post. Or at least read the post to which
you are replying.
Now now boys and girls. Settle down and be civil. :)
Randy Bush wrote:
As for accusations, I challenge you to show where I accused them of
anything.
From: patr...@ianai.net (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:09:58 -0400
Subject: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID
>> You really can't read, can you?
>> And I spoke to Martin about it personally. If he's OK with it,
>> perhaps you should clam down?
> I know Randy to be a bit taciturn and hard to get through to sometimes,
> but never of being a shellfish.
i am from the pacific northwest. so shellfish is good.
Patrick W. Gilmore (patrick) writes:
> You really can't read, can you?
>
> And I spoke to Martin about it personally. If he's OK with it,
> perhaps you should clam down?
I know Randy to be a bit taciturn and hard to get through to sometimes,
but never of being a shellfish.
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
As for facts, there is lots of basis. HE has run a network for decades
and has never let a v4 bifurcation happen so long. Ever. They've run
v6 for a few years yet it happened.
News flash, IPv6 is new.
News flash, every single IPv6 network that gets configured th
From: patr...@ianai.net (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:09:58 -0400
Subject: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering
In-Reply-To: >
References: >
Message-ID: <0a37fd5d-d9d1-4d89-ac8a-105612bb8...@ianai.net>
...
It is sad to see that networks which used to c
> As for accusations, I challenge you to show where I accused them of
> anything.
> From: patr...@ianai.net (Patrick W. Gilmore)
> Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:09:58 -0400
> Subject: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering
> In-Reply-To:
> References:
&g
On Oct 14, 2009, at 9:32 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
I think you are stretching things to make a pithy post. More
importantly, you are missing the point.
and hundreds of words do not cover that you accused HE of something
for
which you had no basis in fact. type less, analyse and think more.
> I think you are stretching things to make a pithy post. More
> importantly, you are missing the point.
and hundreds of words do not cover that you accused HE of something for
which you had no basis in fact. type less, analyse and think more.
randy
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
For the v6 'Net to be used, customers - you know the people who pay for
those router things and that fiber stuff and all our salaries and such -
need to feel some comfort around it actually working. This did not help
that comfort level. And I believe it is valid to
On Oct 12, 2009, at 5:23 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
Matthew Petach wrote:
>
> As I understand it, (and Cisco's documentation seems to support this,
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst6500/ios/12.2ZY/command/reference/M1.html#wpxref54198
> as an example), if you put a /128 in an ACL, you cannot specify any L4 port
> information f
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> Marco Hogewoning wrote:
> >
> > As this thread has drifted off topic any way, would it for instance be a
> > good idea to simply not accept mail from hosts that clearly use
> > autoconfig ie reject all smtp from EUI-64 addresses. Of course n
Marco Hogewoning wrote:
>
> As this thread has drifted off topic any way, would it for instance be a
> good idea to simply not accept mail from hosts that clearly use
> autoconfig ie reject all smtp from EUI-64 addresses. Of course not a
> wise idea for your own outbound relays which should handle
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.
>
>
Funny enough, we've been looking at moving from 174 to HE for a large
amount of traffic, and this discussion is making the decision *a lot*
easier.
On 10/12/09, Dave Temkin wrote:
> Marco Hogewoning wrote:
>>> Cogent: You are absolutely insane. You are doing nothing but
>>> alienating your cust
>> 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.
many of us are interested i
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;
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 records for www.cogentco.com, which means
that I CANNOT reach it to even look at your looking gl
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 records for www.cogentco.com, which means
that I CANNOT reach it to even look at your looking glass. I send
my pref
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 1:56 PM, 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
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 p
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
Marco Hogewoning wrote:
>
> On Oct 12, 2009, at 9:40 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>
>> Marco Hogewoning wrote:
>> [..]
>>> As this thread has drifted off topic any way, would it for instance be a
>>> good idea to simply not accept mail from hosts that clearly use
>>> autoconfig ie reject all smtp fro
On Oct 12, 2009, at 9:40 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Marco Hogewoning wrote:
[..]
As this thread has drifted off topic any way, would it for instance
be a
good idea to simply not accept mail from hosts that clearly use
autoconfig ie reject all smtp from EUI-64 addresses
Can you please *NOT* s
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.
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 a
Marco Hogewoning wrote:
[..]
> As this thread has drifted off topic any way, would it for instance be a
> good idea to simply not accept mail from hosts that clearly use
> autoconfig ie reject all smtp from EUI-64 addresses
Can you please *NOT* suggest people *STUPID* ideas like filtering on
arbit
On Oct 12, 2009, at 9:14 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
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.
There is that chance yes
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
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 ef
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
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 n
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 t
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, i...@cogent is still beta.
Cogent has ne
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 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'
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, i...@cogent is still beta.
regards, Igor
sure would be nice if there was a diagnosis before the lynching
- Original Message -
From: Marco Hogewoning
To: Patrick W. Gilmore
Cc: NANOG list
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 a
6 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
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 seem
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 wh
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
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 wi
56 matches
Mail list logo
