> 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)
