“They also run their links hot which create latency for anything flowing through it.”
Mike, I’d have agreed with you - 15 years ago. Is this current at all? My views on Cogent have evolved dramatically over the years. How recent is your data? -Ben > On Sep 16, 2019, at 4:21 PM, Mike Lyon <mike.l...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The argument has been listed numerous times so i didn’t want to bore people: > > 1. Sprint peering battle. Google it > 2. He.net peering battle. Google it. > 3. Google IPv6 peering battle. Google it. > > All of which point to them being pompous assholes. > > They also run their links hot which create latency for anything flowing > through it. > > Cheers, > Mike > >> On Sep 16, 2019, at 15:59, Stephen M. <stephen.mys...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Please don’t praise or complain like we’re supposed to take it at a total >> face value. If you don’t like them so much - we are you’re audience. >> Explain. >> >> If you like Cogent - explain. >> If you don’t like Cogent - explain. >> >> Cheers, >> Stephen >> >> //please pardon any brevities - sent from mobile// >> >>> On Sep 16, 2019, at 10:01 PM, Mike Lyon <mike.l...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Whenever asked about Cogent, i just say, “Friends don’t let friends use >>> Cogent.” >>> >>> I’ve told two of their reps over the past two years that even if the >>> service was free, i wouldn’t use it. And yet, they still call. >>> >>> -Mike >>> >>>>> On Sep 16, 2019, at 13:53, Ronald F. Guilmette <r...@tristatelogic.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> In message <e814e5f6-f386-4aae-bada-e423d299a...@delong.com>, >>>>> Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Given their practice of harvesting whois updates in order to spam newly >>>>> acquired AS contacts, any time it is my decision, Cogent is ineligible >>>>> as a vendor. >>>> >>>> So I guess then that their aiding and abetting of fraud and IP block >>>> theft, as I documented here recently, is an entirely secondary concern... >>>> as long as they don't spam you, yes? >>>> >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> rfg
