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 upon a time
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
* 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
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
r...@e-gerbil.netwrote:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 10:53:17PM -0700,
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
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
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 make nice
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 12:13 AM, Richard A Steenbergen
r...@e-gerbil.netwrote:
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
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 12:41 PM, Mike Leber mle...@he.net 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
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Seth Mattinen se...@rollernet.us 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.
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 for
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
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
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 seems
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 about
connectivity, peering, latency, etc., when they are small change
their mind when
Hogewoning mar...@marcoh.net
To: Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net
Cc: NANOG list nanog@nanog.org
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
sure would be nice if there was a diagnosis before the lynching
Just saw that telia - HE AND telia - Cogent got fixed. They are now
connected through CW. Maybe someone got woken up by these messages :)
Cogent and HE is still broken but then again, i...@cogent is still beta.
regards, Igor
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
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
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 CW. Maybe someone got woken up by these messages :)
Cogent and HE is still broken but then again, i...@cogent is still beta.
Cogent has never
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 to IPv6
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 not.
I
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
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 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
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
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
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,
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*
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 from EUI-64
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
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Randy Epstein repst...@chello.at 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
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
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
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
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 in
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 dav...@gmail.com wrote:
Marco Hogewoning wrote:
Cogent: You are absolutely insane. You are doing nothing but
alienating
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.
many of us
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
42 matches
Mail list logo
