Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

[Mark Tinka]

On 17/Jun/20 16:30, Robert Blayzor wrote:

>
> They are truly ridiculous to deal with. Turning up a new 10G dual stack
> link with BGP. At turn-up time they tell us we have to order BGP for
> IPv6 separately. So you order a circuit with IPv4+IPv6 w/ BGP, but it
> doesn't click to them you need it for both AF's? Assuming (wrong) that
> maybe they can do both over AF's over the same session, NOPE!...

Confused - were you asking that them to carry both address families over
a single BGP session?

Mark.

Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

[Robert Blayzor]

On 9/16/19 9:30 AM, Jon Sands wrote:
> The last time I dealt with them, it took a little over 3 months to get
> them to turn up basic BGP service. To top it off the sales rep was fired
> in the middle of our deployment. Cogent seems to have higher rep
> turnover than anything else I've dealt with. Buckle up and have fun!


They are truly ridiculous to deal with. Turning up a new 10G dual stack
link with BGP. At turn-up time they tell us we have to order BGP for
IPv6 separately. So you order a circuit with IPv4+IPv6 w/ BGP, but it
doesn't click to them you need it for both AF's? Assuming (wrong) that
maybe they can do both over AF's over the same session, NOPE!...

To top it off, they refuse to enable something as simple as TTL security
on your BGP peering session... but "Oh you can do MD5". Wait, what?

-- 
inoc.net!rblayzor
XMPP: rblayzor.AT.inoc.net
PGP:  https://pgp.inoc.net/rblayzor/

Re: Elad Cohen (was: Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond)

[Töma Gavrichenkov]

Peace,

On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 12:54 AM Ronald F. Guilmette
 wrote:
> Those were all helpfully routed, until quite recently, to Mr. Cohen

The person with exactly the same name now runs for the RIPE NCC
Executive Board membership.

https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2020/confirmed-candidates

--
Töma

Re: Elad Cohen (was: Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond)

[niels=nanog]

* r...@tristatelogic.com (Ronald F. Guilmette) [Fri 20 Sep 2019, 00:50 CEST]:
Leaving aside the minor quibble that "Dutch" is not, as far as I am 
aware, a "race" per se, I do apologize for having improperly and 
quite wrongly generalized the apparent confluence of of certain 
events and actions to the Dutch people generally.  That was entirely 
incorrect and improper on my part and I do sincerly apologize.


Apologies on my end as well, Ronald. I should not have said racist; 
bigoted would have been a more apt description of your earlier screed.

Again, I do apologise, I was clearly in the wrong here.


... it's difficult for me not to infer a possible pattern.


Yep. Sure.


-- Niels.

RE: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

[Michel Py]

> Darin Steffl wrote :
> It may be unethical to pull emails from ARIN listings but their sales guys 
> have a job to do and quotas to meet.

There is no excuse for spamming. Ever.

> Also, just because you don't like their sales process doesn't mean their 
> network is bad.

It actually does. They provide service to anyone regardless of how unethical or 
illegal the business is. By doing so, they provoke congestions at points they 
they refuse to upgrade hoping to milk both sides.
If you get transit from Cogent, you may end up being on the same side as an 
oversubcribed link as crooks such as Megaupload and get degraded service for 
your customers.

Michel.


TSI Disclaimer:  This message and any files or text attached to it are intended 
only for the recipients named above and contain information that may be 
confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not 
forward, copy, use or otherwise disclose this communication or the information 
contained herein. In the event you have received this message in error, please 
notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, and then delete all 
copies of it from your system. Thank you!...

Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

[Owen DeLong]

> On Sep 22, 2019, at 06:02 , Darin Steffl  wrote:
> 
> It may be unethical to pull emails from ARIN listings but their sales guys 
> have a job to do and quotas to meet.

It’s not just unethical. It violates the ToS/AUP for Whois which is clearly 
attached to the results from each whois query.

Also, I suspect that given the volume and rate of Cogent SPAM, they are 
subscribed to bulk whois and/or one or more of ARIN’s update feeds. Subscribing 
to those requires signing a contract agreeing to the ToS/AUP.

I encourage anyone who is fed up with Cogent SPAM to forward copies of it with 
as much evidence as you have to show that the information must have been 
obtained via WHOIS to complia...@arin.net.

The more evidence ARIN receives, the more likely it is that they can take 
effective action.

> Don't get mad at the sales reps, maybe think a little higher up the food 
> chain. Each rep I've had has been very fair and respectful. If I don't need 
> anything new, I tell them to followup with me in 6 months and they do. At 
> most they send me a 2 sentence email to see if I need anything. That's 
> something a good rep should do to make sure they're always in the back of 
> your mind and easy to reach. 

Why on earth not? They’re doing something unethical _AND_ against the ToS for 
the service they are using  in order to obtain the information. 

I get angry with the Sales representatives as well as higher up the food chain 
all the way to the top of Cogent management.

I’ve repeatedly told them to never contact me again and yet every time I 
register anything with ARIN on behalf of one of my clients, I get more Cogent 
SPAM.

> Also, just because you don't like their sales process doesn't mean their 
> network is bad. We've had them for 3 years and never had a single outage. The 
> very few times we did call them for routing questions, they picked up the 
> phone immediately and knew what to do. 

On the other hand, just because their sales representatives and management are 
proven to behave unethically (at best) and well known to violate terms of 
contracts that are inconvenient to them DOES mean that I do not want to do 
business with them.

> That already makes them better than some companies that cost 5 times as much. 
> At cogent pricing, you should receive the worst support but it's damn good 
> right along with HE support. Both are the most affordable transit providers 
> but offer the best support. The more expensive guys should get their crap 
> together. 

Even if they ran the best network on the planet with the best customer service 
I’d ever experienced (they don’t in my experience and my experience differs 
greatly from yours), I still prefer not to do business with companies I KNOW 
are unethical and untrustworthy. If you enjoy the customer experience of doing 
business with unethical companies, then by all means, continue along. OTOH, if 
you want to see this behavior stop, the best thing you can do is vote with your 
dollars the way capitalism and the free market is supposed to work.

If you reward unethical behavior, you get more unethical behavior.

Owen


> 
> On Sun, Sep 22, 2019, 7:54 AM Tim Burke  > wrote:
> That is just The Cogent Way™, unfortunately. I just had (yet another) Cogent 
> rep spam me using an email address that is _only_ used as an ARIN contact, 
> trying to sell me bandwidth. When I called him out on it, with 
> complia...@arin.net  CCed, he backpedaled and 
> claimed to obtain my information from Google. 
> 
> Gotta love these awful bottom feeding companies. 
> 
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019, at 10:05 AM, Dmitry Sherman wrote:
>> Cogent are spamming seriously, they call me from different phone number in 
>> Frankfurt and USA in holidays or at night.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Dmitry Sherman
>> Interhost Networks Ltd
>> dmi...@interhost.net 
>> Mobile: +972-54-3181182
>> Office: +972-74-7029881
>> Web: www.interhost.co.il 
>> 
>> On 17/09/2019, 3:25, "NANOG on behalf of Michel Py" 
>> mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org> on behalf of 
>> michel...@tsisemi.com > wrote:
>> 
>> > If you don’t like Cogent - explain.
>> 
>> Besides the peering issues, they can't stop spamming. If after 20 
>> attempts on the phone you have not picked up, they start to send email.
>> They abuse whois. They are one of the primary reasons few people put 
>> their real phone number in whois.
>> 
>> And I have never talked to that level of incompetence. Tell their sales 
>> droids that you want a link over RFC 1149, or that you need BGT (instead of 
>> BGP), they will tell you no problem.
>> Don't even try to ask anything about communities or RPKI; they can't 
>> tell the difference between a router and a connected coffee pot. If you must 
>> deal with them, record everything.
>> 
>> If someone has a cheap Asterisk trick so when the caller ID 

Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

[Tim Burke]

Call me juvenile all you like, it doesn't bother me... :-) Being one of the 
younger folks in this industry, it's definitely not the first time. If you like 
Cogent, that's great, but don't attack me just because I think their sales reps 
are shady. 

I can assure you that the reps that were harassing me weren't just given a list 
of leads, they went out of their way to look through ARIN's new allocation list 
and spam the living crap out of people. With that said, I am a man of ethics 
and morals, and will do whatever I can to ensure that I do not do business with 
companies that employ people that engage in unethical tactics. 

I've had no other bandwidth provider engage in Cogent's tactics, including the 
three that I currently do business with, and have an extremely positive 
relationship with. 

On Sun, Sep 22, 2019, at 11:20 AM, Darin Steffl wrote:
> Tim,
> 
> The reps themselves have not been unethical. They've not lied or been 
> dishonest to me in the sales process at all. Comparing them to a shady used 
> car salesman is not a fair comparison. 
> 
> They are likely given a list of leads and need to make so many cold calls to 
> show they're trying to make sales. 
> 
> That's not to say some reps will do unethical things vs other reps like ours 
> who were nothing but honest, good people. 
> 
> I think it's juvenile to avoid a company solely on reps reaching out to sell 
> to you. That's their job. If their network and support is good and their cost 
> is attractive, get over your petty reasons for avoiding them. You're stuck on 
> one point and hold a grudge because "their sales process is shady". 
> 
> I've seen shady companies and cogent isn't one of them. Take CenturyLink 
> where they quote a small business $100 for internet and phone but the bill is 
> actually $197 after all the hidden fees and tax. That's shady. Cogent has 
> never done that. They bill you exactly what's in the contract and not a penny 
> more. 
> 
> Zayo adds hidden fees and BS reasons for why they collect them and there's no 
> way out of it. Again, not a problem with cogent or Hurricane. 
> 
> 
> On Sun, Sep 22, 2019, 9:53 AM Dmitry Sherman  wrote:
>> They are not that cheap... 
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Dmitry Sherman
>> Interhost Networks
>> www.interhost.co.il
>> dmi...@interhost.net
>> Mob: 054-3181182
>> Sent from Steve's creature 
>> 
>> 
>> On 22 Sep 2019, at 16:49, Tim Burke  wrote:
>> 
>>> Ethical business practices are quite important to me... I don't care how 
>>> their pricing is, if every one of their sales reps is on-par with a used 
>>> car salesman, I want nothing to do with them. No other carrier I deal with 
>>> acts in this fashion. 
>>> 
>>> If you're OK with cheap bandwidth sold by car sales rejects, that's fine... 
>>> but I am most certainly not interested.
>>> 
>>> On Sun, Sep 22, 2019, at 8:02 AM, Darin Steffl wrote:
 It may be unethical to pull emails from ARIN listings but their sales guys 
 have a job to do and quotas to meet.
 
 Don't get mad at the sales reps, maybe think a little higher up the food 
 chain. Each rep I've had has been very fair and respectful. If I don't 
 need anything new, I tell them to followup with me in 6 months and they 
 do. At most they send me a 2 sentence email to see if I need anything. 
 That's something a good rep should do to make sure they're always in the 
 back of your mind and easy to reach. 
 
 Also, just because you don't like their sales process doesn't mean their 
 network is bad. We've had them for 3 years and never had a single outage. 
 The very few times we did call them for routing questions, they picked up 
 the phone immediately and knew what to do. 
 
 That already makes them better than some companies that cost 5 times as 
 much. At cogent pricing, you should receive the worst support but it's 
 damn good right along with HE support. Both are the most affordable 
 transit providers but offer the best support. The more expensive guys 
 should get their crap together. 
 
 On Sun, Sep 22, 2019, 7:54 AM Tim Burke  wrote:
> __
> That is just The Cogent Way™, unfortunately. I just had (yet another) 
> Cogent rep spam me using an email address that is _only_ used as an ARIN 
> contact, trying to sell me bandwidth. When I called him out on it, with 
> complia...@arin.net CCed, he backpedaled and claimed to obtain my 
> information from Google. 
> 
> Gotta love these awful bottom feeding companies. 
> 
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019, at 10:05 AM, Dmitry Sherman wrote:
>> Cogent are spamming seriously, they call me from different phone number 
>> in Frankfurt and USA in holidays or at night.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Dmitry Sherman
>> Interhost Networks Ltd
>> dmi...@interhost.net
>> Mobile: +972-54-3181182
>> Office: +972-74-7029881
>> Web: www.interhost.co.il
>> 
>>  On 17/09/2019, 3:25, "NANOG on 

Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

[Darin Steffl]

Tim,

The reps themselves have not been unethical. They've not lied or been
dishonest to me in the sales process at all. Comparing them to a shady used
car salesman is not a fair comparison.

They are likely given a list of leads and need to make so many cold calls
to show they're trying to make sales.

That's not to say some reps will do unethical things vs other reps like
ours who were nothing but honest, good people.

I think it's juvenile to avoid a company solely on reps reaching out to
sell to you. That's their job. If their network and support is good and
their cost is attractive, get over your petty reasons for avoiding them.
You're stuck on one point and hold a grudge because "their sales process is
shady".

I've seen shady companies and cogent isn't one of them. Take CenturyLink
where they quote a small business $100 for internet and phone but the bill
is actually $197 after all the hidden fees and tax. That's shady. Cogent
has never done that. They bill you exactly what's in the contract and not a
penny more.

Zayo adds hidden fees and BS reasons for why they collect them and there's
no way out of it. Again, not a problem with cogent or Hurricane.


On Sun, Sep 22, 2019, 9:53 AM Dmitry Sherman  wrote:

> They are not that cheap...
>
> Best regards,
> Dmitry Sherman
> Interhost Networks
> www.interhost.co.il
> dmi...@interhost.net
> Mob: 054-3181182
> Sent from Steve's creature
>
> On 22 Sep 2019, at 16:49, Tim Burke  wrote:
>
> Ethical business practices are quite important to me... I don't care how
> their pricing is, if every one of their sales reps is on-par with a used
> car salesman, I want nothing to do with them. No other carrier I deal with
> acts in this fashion.
>
> If you're OK with cheap bandwidth sold by car sales rejects, that's
> fine... but I am most certainly not interested.
>
> On Sun, Sep 22, 2019, at 8:02 AM, Darin Steffl wrote:
>
> It may be unethical to pull emails from ARIN listings but their sales guys
> have a job to do and quotas to meet.
>
> Don't get mad at the sales reps, maybe think a little higher up the food
> chain. Each rep I've had has been very fair and respectful. If I don't need
> anything new, I tell them to followup with me in 6 months and they do. At
> most they send me a 2 sentence email to see if I need anything. That's
> something a good rep should do to make sure they're always in the back of
> your mind and easy to reach.
>
> Also, just because you don't like their sales process doesn't mean their
> network is bad. We've had them for 3 years and never had a single outage.
> The very few times we did call them for routing questions, they picked up
> the phone immediately and knew what to do.
>
> That already makes them better than some companies that cost 5 times as
> much. At cogent pricing, you should receive the worst support but it's damn
> good right along with HE support. Both are the most affordable transit
> providers but offer the best support. The more expensive guys should get
> their crap together.
>
> On Sun, Sep 22, 2019, 7:54 AM Tim Burke  wrote:
>
>
> That is just The Cogent Way™, unfortunately. I just had (yet another)
> Cogent rep spam me using an email address that is _only_ used as an ARIN
> contact, trying to sell me bandwidth. When I called him out on it, with
> complia...@arin.net CCed, he backpedaled and claimed to obtain my
> information from Google.
>
> Gotta love these awful bottom feeding companies.
>
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019, at 10:05 AM, Dmitry Sherman wrote:
>
> Cogent are spamming seriously, they call me from different phone number in
> Frankfurt and USA in holidays or at night.
>
> --
> Dmitry Sherman
> Interhost Networks Ltd
> dmi...@interhost.net
> Mobile: +972-54-3181182
> Office: +972-74-7029881
> Web: www.interhost.co.il
>
> On 17/09/2019, 3:25, "NANOG on behalf of Michel Py" <
> nanog-boun...@nanog.org on behalf of michel...@tsisemi.com> wrote:
>
> > If you don’t like Cogent - explain.
>
> Besides the peering issues, they can't stop spamming. If after 20
> attempts on the phone you have not picked up, they start to send email.
> They abuse whois. They are one of the primary reasons few people put
> their real phone number in whois.
>
> And I have never talked to that level of incompetence. Tell their
> sales droids that you want a link over RFC 1149, or that you need BGT
> (instead of BGP), they will tell you no problem.
> Don't even try to ask anything about communities or RPKI; they can't
> tell the difference between a router and a connected coffee pot. If you
> must deal with them, record everything.
>
> If someone has a cheap Asterisk trick so when the caller ID says
> COGENT it goes directly to Lenny I'll take it.
>
> Michel
>
> TSI Disclaimer:  This message and any files or text attached to it are
> intended only for the recipients named above and contain information that
> may be confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient,
> you must not forward, 

Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

[Dmitry Sherman]

They are not that cheap...

Best regards,
Dmitry Sherman
Interhost Networks
www.interhost.co.il
dmi...@interhost.net
Mob: 054-3181182
Sent from Steve's creature
[X]

On 22 Sep 2019, at 16:49, Tim Burke mailto:t...@tburke.us>> 
wrote:

Ethical business practices are quite important to me... I don't care how their 
pricing is, if every one of their sales reps is on-par with a used car 
salesman, I want nothing to do with them. No other carrier I deal with acts in 
this fashion.

If you're OK with cheap bandwidth sold by car sales rejects, that's fine... but 
I am most certainly not interested.

On Sun, Sep 22, 2019, at 8:02 AM, Darin Steffl wrote:
It may be unethical to pull emails from ARIN listings but their sales guys have 
a job to do and quotas to meet.

Don't get mad at the sales reps, maybe think a little higher up the food chain. 
Each rep I've had has been very fair and respectful. If I don't need anything 
new, I tell them to followup with me in 6 months and they do. At most they send 
me a 2 sentence email to see if I need anything. That's something a good rep 
should do to make sure they're always in the back of your mind and easy to 
reach.

Also, just because you don't like their sales process doesn't mean their 
network is bad. We've had them for 3 years and never had a single outage. The 
very few times we did call them for routing questions, they picked up the phone 
immediately and knew what to do.

That already makes them better than some companies that cost 5 times as much. 
At cogent pricing, you should receive the worst support but it's damn good 
right along with HE support. Both are the most affordable transit providers but 
offer the best support. The more expensive guys should get their crap together.

On Sun, Sep 22, 2019, 7:54 AM Tim Burke mailto:t...@tburke.us>> 
wrote:

That is just The Cogent Way™, unfortunately. I just had (yet another) Cogent 
rep spam me using an email address that is _only_ used as an ARIN contact, 
trying to sell me bandwidth. When I called him out on it, with 
complia...@arin.net CCed, he backpedaled and 
claimed to obtain my information from Google.

Gotta love these awful bottom feeding companies.

On Thu, Sep 19, 2019, at 10:05 AM, Dmitry Sherman wrote:
Cogent are spamming seriously, they call me from different phone number in 
Frankfurt and USA in holidays or at night.

--
Dmitry Sherman
Interhost Networks Ltd
dmi...@interhost.net
Mobile: +972-54-3181182
Office: +972-74-7029881
Web: www.interhost.co.il

On 17/09/2019, 3:25, "NANOG on behalf of Michel Py" 
mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org> on behalf of 
michel...@tsisemi.com> wrote:

> If you don’t like Cogent - explain.

Besides the peering issues, they can't stop spamming. If after 20 attempts 
on the phone you have not picked up, they start to send email.
They abuse whois. They are one of the primary reasons few people put their 
real phone number in whois.

And I have never talked to that level of incompetence. Tell their sales 
droids that you want a link over RFC 1149, or that you need BGT (instead of 
BGP), they will tell you no problem.
Don't even try to ask anything about communities or RPKI; they can't tell 
the difference between a router and a connected coffee pot. If you must deal 
with them, record everything.

If someone has a cheap Asterisk trick so when the caller ID says COGENT it 
goes directly to Lenny I'll take it.

Michel

TSI Disclaimer:  This message and any files or text attached to it are 
intended only for the recipients named above and contain information that may 
be confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must 
not forward, copy, use or otherwise disclose this communication or the 
information contained herein. In the event you have received this message in 
error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, and 
then delete all copies of it from your system. Thank you!...

Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

[Tim Burke]

Ethical business practices are quite important to me... I don't care how their 
pricing is, if every one of their sales reps is on-par with a used car 
salesman, I want nothing to do with them. No other carrier I deal with acts in 
this fashion. 

If you're OK with cheap bandwidth sold by car sales rejects, that's fine... but 
I am most certainly not interested.

On Sun, Sep 22, 2019, at 8:02 AM, Darin Steffl wrote:
> It may be unethical to pull emails from ARIN listings but their sales guys 
> have a job to do and quotas to meet.
> 
> Don't get mad at the sales reps, maybe think a little higher up the food 
> chain. Each rep I've had has been very fair and respectful. If I don't need 
> anything new, I tell them to followup with me in 6 months and they do. At 
> most they send me a 2 sentence email to see if I need anything. That's 
> something a good rep should do to make sure they're always in the back of 
> your mind and easy to reach. 
> 
> Also, just because you don't like their sales process doesn't mean their 
> network is bad. We've had them for 3 years and never had a single outage. The 
> very few times we did call them for routing questions, they picked up the 
> phone immediately and knew what to do. 
> 
> That already makes them better than some companies that cost 5 times as much. 
> At cogent pricing, you should receive the worst support but it's damn good 
> right along with HE support. Both are the most affordable transit providers 
> but offer the best support. The more expensive guys should get their crap 
> together. 
> 
> On Sun, Sep 22, 2019, 7:54 AM Tim Burke  wrote:
>> __
>> That is just The Cogent Way™, unfortunately. I just had (yet another) Cogent 
>> rep spam me using an email address that is _only_ used as an ARIN contact, 
>> trying to sell me bandwidth. When I called him out on it, with 
>> complia...@arin.net CCed, he backpedaled and claimed to obtain my 
>> information from Google. 
>> 
>> Gotta love these awful bottom feeding companies. 
>> 
>> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019, at 10:05 AM, Dmitry Sherman wrote:
>>> Cogent are spamming seriously, they call me from different phone number in 
>>> Frankfurt and USA in holidays or at night.
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Dmitry Sherman
>>> Interhost Networks Ltd
>>> dmi...@interhost.net
>>> Mobile: +972-54-3181182
>>> Office: +972-74-7029881
>>> Web: www.interhost.co.il
>>> 
>>>  On 17/09/2019, 3:25, "NANOG on behalf of Michel Py" 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>>  > If you don’t like Cogent - explain.
>>> 
>>>  Besides the peering issues, they can't stop spamming. If after 20 attempts 
>>> on the phone you have not picked up, they start to send email.
>>>  They abuse whois. They are one of the primary reasons few people put their 
>>> real phone number in whois.
>>> 
>>>  And I have never talked to that level of incompetence. Tell their sales 
>>> droids that you want a link over RFC 1149, or that you need BGT (instead of 
>>> BGP), they will tell you no problem.
>>>  Don't even try to ask anything about communities or RPKI; they can't tell 
>>> the difference between a router and a connected coffee pot. If you must 
>>> deal with them, record everything.
>>> 
>>>  If someone has a cheap Asterisk trick so when the caller ID says COGENT it 
>>> goes directly to Lenny I'll take it.
>>> 
>>>  Michel
>>> 
>>>  TSI Disclaimer: This message and any files or text attached to it are 
>>> intended only for the recipients named above and contain information that 
>>> may be confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, 
>>> you must not forward, copy, use or otherwise disclose this communication or 
>>> the information contained herein. In the event you have received this 
>>> message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this 
>>> message, and then delete all copies of it from your system. Thank you!...
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 

Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

[Darin Steffl]

It may be unethical to pull emails from ARIN listings but their sales guys
have a job to do and quotas to meet.

Don't get mad at the sales reps, maybe think a little higher up the food
chain. Each rep I've had has been very fair and respectful. If I don't need
anything new, I tell them to followup with me in 6 months and they do. At
most they send me a 2 sentence email to see if I need anything. That's
something a good rep should do to make sure they're always in the back of
your mind and easy to reach.

Also, just because you don't like their sales process doesn't mean their
network is bad. We've had them for 3 years and never had a single outage.
The very few times we did call them for routing questions, they picked up
the phone immediately and knew what to do.

That already makes them better than some companies that cost 5 times as
much. At cogent pricing, you should receive the worst support but it's damn
good right along with HE support. Both are the most affordable transit
providers but offer the best support. The more expensive guys should get
their crap together.

On Sun, Sep 22, 2019, 7:54 AM Tim Burke  wrote:

> That is just The Cogent Way™, unfortunately. I just had (yet another)
> Cogent rep spam me using an email address that is _only_ used as an ARIN
> contact, trying to sell me bandwidth. When I called him out on it, with
> complia...@arin.net CCed, he backpedaled and claimed to obtain my
> information from Google.
>
> Gotta love these awful bottom feeding companies.
>
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019, at 10:05 AM, Dmitry Sherman wrote:
>
> Cogent are spamming seriously, they call me from different phone number in
> Frankfurt and USA in holidays or at night.
>
> --
> Dmitry Sherman
> Interhost Networks Ltd
> dmi...@interhost.net
> Mobile: +972-54-3181182
> Office: +972-74-7029881
> Web: www.interhost.co.il
>
> On 17/09/2019, 3:25, "NANOG on behalf of Michel Py" <
> nanog-boun...@nanog.org on behalf of michel...@tsisemi.com> wrote:
>
> > If you don’t like Cogent - explain.
>
> Besides the peering issues, they can't stop spamming. If after 20
> attempts on the phone you have not picked up, they start to send email.
> They abuse whois. They are one of the primary reasons few people put
> their real phone number in whois.
>
> And I have never talked to that level of incompetence. Tell their
> sales droids that you want a link over RFC 1149, or that you need BGT
> (instead of BGP), they will tell you no problem.
> Don't even try to ask anything about communities or RPKI; they can't
> tell the difference between a router and a connected coffee pot. If you
> must deal with them, record everything.
>
> If someone has a cheap Asterisk trick so when the caller ID says
> COGENT it goes directly to Lenny I'll take it.
>
> Michel
>
> TSI Disclaimer:  This message and any files or text attached to it are
> intended only for the recipients named above and contain information that
> may be confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient,
> you must not forward, copy, use or otherwise disclose this communication or
> the information contained herein. In the event you have received this
> message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this
> message, and then delete all copies of it from your system. Thank you!...
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

[Tim Burke]

That is just The Cogent Way™, unfortunately. I just had (yet another) Cogent 
rep spam me using an email address that is _only_ used as an ARIN contact, 
trying to sell me bandwidth. When I called him out on it, with 
complia...@arin.net CCed, he backpedaled and claimed to obtain my information 
from Google. 

Gotta love these awful bottom feeding companies. 

On Thu, Sep 19, 2019, at 10:05 AM, Dmitry Sherman wrote:
> Cogent are spamming seriously, they call me from different phone number in 
> Frankfurt and USA in holidays or at night.
> 
> -- 
> Dmitry Sherman
> Interhost Networks Ltd
> dmi...@interhost.net
> Mobile: +972-54-3181182
> Office: +972-74-7029881
> Web: www.interhost.co.il
> 
>  On 17/09/2019, 3:25, "NANOG on behalf of Michel Py"  on behalf of michel...@tsisemi.com> wrote:
> 
>  > If you don’t like Cogent - explain.
> 
>  Besides the peering issues, they can't stop spamming. If after 20 attempts 
> on the phone you have not picked up, they start to send email.
>  They abuse whois. They are one of the primary reasons few people put their 
> real phone number in whois.
> 
>  And I have never talked to that level of incompetence. Tell their sales 
> droids that you want a link over RFC 1149, or that you need BGT (instead of 
> BGP), they will tell you no problem.
>  Don't even try to ask anything about communities or RPKI; they can't tell 
> the difference between a router and a connected coffee pot. If you must deal 
> with them, record everything.
> 
>  If someone has a cheap Asterisk trick so when the caller ID says COGENT it 
> goes directly to Lenny I'll take it.
> 
>  Michel
> 
>  TSI Disclaimer: This message and any files or text attached to it are 
> intended only for the recipients named above and contain information that may 
> be confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you 
> must not forward, copy, use or otherwise disclose this communication or the 
> information contained herein. In the event you have received this message in 
> error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, and 
> then delete all copies of it from your system. Thank you!...
> 
> 
> 

Re: Elad Cohen (was: Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond)

[Ronald F. Guilmette]

In message <20190919084649.gc30...@jima.tpb.net>, 
niels=na...@bakker.net wrote:

>* r...@tristatelogic.com (Ronald F. Guilmette) [Thu 19 Sep 2019, 10:05 CEST]:
>>I never like to generalize to entire populations, and I will 
>>therefore refrain from suggesting any endemic or widespread defect 
>>in the Dutch national psyche, but I cannot help but note that, as 
>>pointed out in the MyBroadband.co.za news report, a gentleman named 
>>Maikel Uerlings, who is also Dutch, and who presently appears to be 
>>notably absent from the Netherlands, perhaps due to certain 
>>less-than-friendly legal entanglements, is also, it appears, 
>>intimately connected to Mr. Cohen and to his business, such as it 
>>is.  It would be entirely improper for me to say or even to suggest 
>>that the Dutch are any more inclined toward cybercrime, or toward 
>>looking the other way while it takes place, than anyone else.  I 
>>will instead only paraphrase William Shakespeare and say that there 
>>is something rotten in the Netherlands, and that whatever it is, it 
>>ain't doing their national reputation any good at all.
>
>Couching your racism in some faux plausible deniability by using 
>phrases such as "It would be entirely improper of me to" or "I will 
>refrain from [making a certain racist suggestion]" and then immediately 
>making that racist suggestion, doesn't make your remarks not racist.  
>Nor can you hide behind the classics.
>
>Racism has no place in this community and you would do well to refrain 
>from posting any more such remarks.

Leaving aside the minor quibble that "Dutch" is not, as far as I am aware,
a "race" per se, I do apologize for having improperly and quite wrongly
generalized the apparent confluence of of certain events and actions to
the Dutch people generally.  That was entirely incorrect and improper on
my part and I do sincerly apologize.

Looking back now at one of my own posts here from a couple of years ago,
I do see that at the time, there did seem to be some similar sorts of
undesirable and arguably untowards routing events which were emmanating
from AS260, Xconnect24 Inc., which at the time appeared to me to be an
Amsterdam-based networking company:

https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2017-August/091821.html

(The company still does appear to have some footprint in Amsterdam.)

Obviously, those historical events have no relation whatsoever to present
circumstances or to recent events, but given that I've not generally seen
much of this kind of stuff from other European locales... with the
exception of Ukraine... it's difficult for me not to infer a possible
pattern.

That having been said, the "pattern" such as it is, is quite obviously
not one that can or should be attributed to the Dutch people generally,
who make the world's best and most admirable chocolate, wooden shoes,
and windmills, by the way.  Rather, the pattern, if there even is one,
seems to be confined exclusively and only to the networking community
and its associated professionals within the city limits of Amsterdam.
And furthermore, I am quite entirely sure that even the majority of this
small group are admirable and honorable people, doing their level best,
day in and day out, to provide quality and honest service to their
neighbors, their countrymen, and to the people of Europe generally.

My hope is that it will not be inappropriate for me to simply express my
sincere desire that this overwehlming majority, i.e. the good men and
women of the Amsterdam networking community will, over time, work to
insure that that all members of their community adhere to the highest
ethical standards in all respects and at all times.


Regards,
rfg

Re: Elad Cohen (was: Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond)

[Christopher Morrow]

On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 11:43 AM William Herrin  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 7:58 AM Christopher Morrow  
> wrote:
>>
>> What I'm asking is: "there is already repair for the harmed parties,
>> if they are not taking advantage of this then I don't think we need to
>> spend more time on this topic"
>
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> I respectfully disagree with the assertion that "there is already repair." 
> Getting an entity

cool! :)

> on the other side of the planet whose front-line contacts don't speak your 
> language to
> correct local configuration overrides associated with your address space 
> turns out to be
> a hard task. Getting several hundred entities

Sure,  getting in touch can be rough.
1) publish ROA for your prefixes
2) call upstream and have them note the presence of the ROA
3) done

it's always a tad more complex, and in situations where actual traffic
loss is occurring this
is frustrating to deal with :( but... These are the tools available.
Shouting into the wind (nanog)
really isn't helping, and I'd argue that in this particular case the
'original owners[tm]' don't know
and probably don't even care.

Of course, the above 3 step process does mean that:
  o You have the RIR credentials to do the RPKI dances.
  o You actually noticed the problem.
  o Where in the world waldo (or your prefixes) appeared mattered to you

I think in the cases outlined so far here, these three are missing and
arguably not important to the
'original owner[tm]' of the space/blocks.

> to do so, because they've all acted independently in response to the problem 
> with your
> address space, is functionally insurmountable. It victimizes the folks whose 
> addresses
> were stolen beyond repair.

In this case I don't think 'stolen' is important... sadly these spaces
went fallow and were lost in time :(
having dealt with many cases of this for my current/past employer I'm
sensitive to the problem :( and
have had good/bad dealings with folks with problems like this... The
tools do exist, we should all use
them.

> Regards,
> Bill Herrin

always a pleasure! :)
-chris

> --
> William Herrin
> b...@herrin.us
> https://bill.herrin.us/

Re: Elad Cohen (was: Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond)

[William Herrin]

On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 7:58 AM Christopher Morrow 
wrote:

> What I'm asking is: "there is already repair for the harmed parties,
> if they are not taking advantage of this then I don't think we need to
> spend more time on this topic"
>

Hi Chris,

I respectfully disagree with the assertion that "there is already repair."
Getting an entity on the other side of the planet whose front-line contacts
don't speak your language to correct local configuration overrides
associated with your address space turns out to be a hard task. Getting
several hundred entities to do so, because they've all acted independently
in response to the problem with your address space, is functionally
insurmountable. It victimizes the folks whose addresses were stolen beyond
repair.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/

Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

[Dmitry Sherman]

Cogent are spamming seriously, they call me from different phone number in 
Frankfurt and USA in holidays or at night.

-- 
Dmitry Sherman
Interhost Networks Ltd
dmi...@interhost.net
Mobile: +972-54-3181182
Office: +972-74-7029881
Web: www.interhost.co.il

On 17/09/2019, 3:25, "NANOG on behalf of Michel Py"  wrote:

> If you don’t like Cogent - explain.

Besides the peering issues, they can't stop spamming. If after 20 attempts 
on the phone you have not picked up, they start to send email.
They abuse whois. They are one of the primary reasons few people put their 
real phone number in whois.

And I have never talked to that level of incompetence. Tell their sales 
droids that you want a link over RFC 1149, or that you need BGT (instead of 
BGP), they will tell you no problem.
Don't even try to ask anything about communities or RPKI; they can't tell 
the difference between a router and a connected coffee pot. If you must deal 
with them, record everything.

If someone has a cheap Asterisk trick so when the caller ID says COGENT it 
goes directly to Lenny I'll take it.

Michel

TSI Disclaimer:  This message and any files or text attached to it are 
intended only for the recipients named above and contain information that may 
be confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must 
not forward, copy, use or otherwise disclose this communication or the 
information contained herein. In the event you have received this message in 
error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, and 
then delete all copies of it from your system. Thank you!...

Re: Elad Cohen (was: Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond)

[Christopher Morrow]

On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 4:05 AM Ronald F. Guilmette
 wrote:
>
> In message 
> 
> Christopher Morrow  wrote:
>
> >"who cares about the sale?"
>
> My apologies.  I see that I have failed to be adequately clear.
>

I was misunderstood I think.
What I'm asking is: "there is already repair for the harmed parties,
if they are not taking advantage of this then I don't think we need to
spend more time on this topic"

There is a bunch of focus on 'sale' or 'barter' or 'receipts' or
'theft', none of that really matters if the harmed parties and RIRs
aren't going to request/take action.

-chris

Re: Elad Cohen (was: Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond)

[niels=nanog]

* r...@tristatelogic.com (Ronald F. Guilmette) [Thu 19 Sep 2019, 10:05 CEST]:
I never like to generalize to entire populations, and I will 
therefore refrain from suggesting any endemic or widespread defect 
in the Dutch national psyche, but I cannot help but note that, as 
pointed out in the MyBroadband.co.za news report, a gentleman named 
Maikel Uerlings, who is also Dutch, and who presently appears to be 
notably absent from the Netherlands, perhaps due to certain 
less-than-friendly legal entanglements, is also, it appears, 
intimately connected to Mr. Cohen and to his business, such as it 
is.  It would be entirely improper for me to say or even to suggest 
that the Dutch are any more inclined toward cybercrime, or toward 
looking the other way while it takes place, than anyone else.  I 
will instead only paraphrase William Shakespeare and say that there 
is something rotten in the Netherlands, and that whatever it is, it 
ain't doing their national reputation any good at all.


Couching your racism in some faux plausible deniability by using 
phrases such as "It would be entirely improper of me to" or "I will 
refrain from [making a certain racist suggestion]" and then immediately 
making that racist suggestion, doesn't make your remarks not racist.  
Nor can you hide behind the classics.


Racism has no place in this community and you would do well to refrain 
from posting any more such remarks.



-- Niels.

Re: Elad Cohen (was: Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond)

[Ronald F. Guilmette]

In message 
Christopher Morrow  wrote:

>"who cares about the sale?"

My apologies.  I see that I have failed to be adequately clear.

There was no "sale".  There was only theft, and then stolen goods
being passed from hand to hand to hand, ultimately ending up in the
hands of Mr. Cohen, who has acted and who is still acting, even as
we speak, as the penultimate monitizer of these purloined resources,
with the ongoing and helpful endorsement, I should note, of the Merit
RADB data base:

https://pastebin.com/raw/115RifX3
https://pastebin.com/raw/r9SRMJJk

Please note in particular, in that first file, Mr. Cohen's route object
for the entire 196.16.0.0/14 block... a block which AFRINIC historical
WHOIS records show clearly was and is the rightful property of a thing
called "Infoplan", which was the South African national government's
captive IT services arm until the passage of the "SITA Act" (1998) in
South Africa, by whose express and explict terms what used to be
"Infoplan" was subsumed and taken over, lock, stock and barrel, by the
South African government's newly formed replacement captive IT services
provider, The State Information and Technology Agency (SITA):

https://pastebin.com/raw/cXLy6QYf

But apparently, by some miracle of persuasiveness, in addition to making
the Right Friends inside that Australian national government AND inside
the administration of the City of Cape Town... at least briefly...  Mr.
Cohen also also deftly persuaded the national government of South Africa
that they really didn't need that $4 million dollar (USD) IPv4 asset after
all (i.e. the 196.16.0.0/14 block) and that they should sell it to him for
an as yet undisclosed price.

>If the outcome of 'someone' controlling IP space is that there is
>abusive activity coming from that space...

Nobody knows what the hell is really going on with that space or what
Mr. Cohen's customers need quite so much IPv4 space for... an amount
that lots of folks in the ARIN region would kill for.

I tried to make some polite inquiries with one of Mr. Cohen's apparent
better and more noteworthy customers, and I am still awaiting some
reply, adequate or otherwise, from that company.  In the meantime,
Mr. Cohen's English language web site became notably scrubbed of the
glowing customer testimonials with which it had been previously adorned,
shortly before I started asking questions.

Nothing at all suspicious about that, now is there?

It would appear that at least one of the companies that are Mr. Cohen's
best customers, and that had previously given Mr. Cohen's company glowing
testimonials no longer wish to have their company names associated with
him or his company, at least not in public.

Now why do you suppose that might be?  And what are THEY doing with the
large and illicitly snatched IPv4 blocks that he has leased to them?

In due course, I will have more to say about Mr. Cohen's customers and
what I believe them to be up to, based on the evidence.

>If the 'rightful owners' of the space need/want it back there's clear
>redress for them via their RIR and the various networks which are /
>were offering transit to these prefixes.

No, actually, there isn't, and that's the point.

Firstly, the RIRs are not the Internet Police, and by and large they
are adamantly unwilling (and allegedly even unable) to interject even
so much as their views or firmly held beliefs into the global BGP system
of routing.  In fact, the overwhelming majority of them are so throughly
cowed, both by their memberships and their respective legal teams, that
they dare not even speak the truth of whether it is night or day for fear
of such public pronouncements being the cause of subsequent litigation.

With regards to transit providers, Mr. Cohen and his ill-gotten resorces
have now, at long last,  been 100% kicked off of Cogent, indicating that
even they, at least, find it no longer plausibly deniable that most or all
of Mr. Cohen's allegedly purchased IPv4 space just simply doesn't belong
to him.  It only took them about 15 days of fiddling to finally come
around to this inescapable conclusion, but better late than never.

With regards to to the various relevant transit providers for the small
group of commonly-owned Dutch networks to which Mr. Cohen has, of late,
been migrating his booty, I have already spent more than a week, politely
browbeating all of these transit providers, as well as an official at
AMS-IX, and I have tried my best to acquaint them all with the plain
facts of this case.

The net effect of all this effort on my part has been that AMS-IX has
shrugged and told me that there is simply nothing they can do, and the
transit providers have politely informed me that they are all "still
investigating".

Meanwhile, Mr. Cohen continues to laugh all the way to the bank, and
continues to enjoy much connectivity, centered primarily in Amsterdam,
and all of it apparently immune to anything resembling "peer pressure".

Th net effects of my 

Re: Elad Cohen (was: Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond)

[Christopher Morrow]

On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 11:19 PM Ben Cannon  wrote:

> With the difficulty of getting IPs off SPAM RBLs being what they are, I’m
> not sure I like the bone-chilling idea of accepting null-routing entire
> ranges as standard practice.
>

I didn't say spam-rbl.


>
> Same reasons, no central repository, no easy/quick/objective/cheap way to
> remove an illegitimate entry - and then the real problem, there’s just 6
> billion of them now and
> they’re all over the place and you’re listed in one of them probably no
> matter who you are.
>
> -Ben.
>
> -Ben Cannon
> CEO 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC
> b...@6by7.net
>
>
>
> On Sep 18, 2019, at 6:57 PM, Christopher Morrow 
> wrote:
>
> I tried to ask this earlier, I think, but...
>
> "who cares about the sale?"
>
> I ask this because I think getting wrapped around that axle is the
> wrong place to spend resources.
> If the outcome of 'someone' controlling IP space is that there is
> abusive activity coming from that space and either no actions are
> taken to correct that, OR the problem is endemic and there is no
> change over time, then the action the community should take is not
> accepting routes to these prefixes. Once everyone (or enough
> everyones) stop accepting packets/paths the address space isn't
> important anymore.
>
> If the 'rightful owners' of the space need/want it back there's clear
> redress for them via their RIR and the various networks which are /
> were offering transit to these prefixes.
>
> -chris
>
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 6:02 PM Job Snijders  wrote:
>
>
> It would be good to see some receipts, offered by the selling party.
>
>
>

Re: Elad Cohen (was: Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond)

[Ben Cannon]

With the difficulty of getting IPs off SPAM RBLs being what they are, I’m not 
sure I like the bone-chilling idea of accepting null-routing entire ranges as 
standard practice.

Same reasons, no central repository, no easy/quick/objective/cheap way to 
remove an illegitimate entry - and then the real problem, there’s just 6 
billion of them now and 
they’re all over the place and you’re listed in one of them probably no matter 
who you are.

-Ben.

-Ben Cannon
CEO 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC 
b...@6by7.net 




> On Sep 18, 2019, at 6:57 PM, Christopher Morrow  
> wrote:
> 
> I tried to ask this earlier, I think, but...
> 
> "who cares about the sale?"
> 
> I ask this because I think getting wrapped around that axle is the
> wrong place to spend resources.
> If the outcome of 'someone' controlling IP space is that there is
> abusive activity coming from that space and either no actions are
> taken to correct that, OR the problem is endemic and there is no
> change over time, then the action the community should take is not
> accepting routes to these prefixes. Once everyone (or enough
> everyones) stop accepting packets/paths the address space isn't
> important anymore.
> 
> If the 'rightful owners' of the space need/want it back there's clear
> redress for them via their RIR and the various networks which are /
> were offering transit to these prefixes.
> 
> -chris
> 
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 6:02 PM Job Snijders  wrote:
>> 
>> It would be good to see some receipts, offered by the selling party.

Re: Elad Cohen (was: Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond)

[Christopher Morrow]

I tried to ask this earlier, I think, but...

"who cares about the sale?"

I ask this because I think getting wrapped around that axle is the
wrong place to spend resources.
If the outcome of 'someone' controlling IP space is that there is
abusive activity coming from that space and either no actions are
taken to correct that, OR the problem is endemic and there is no
change over time, then the action the community should take is not
accepting routes to these prefixes. Once everyone (or enough
everyones) stop accepting packets/paths the address space isn't
important anymore.

If the 'rightful owners' of the space need/want it back there's clear
redress for them via their RIR and the various networks which are /
were offering transit to these prefixes.

-chris

On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 6:02 PM Job Snijders  wrote:
>
> It would be good to see some receipts, offered by the selling party.

Re: Elad Cohen (was: Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond)

[Job Snijders]

It would be good to see some receipts, offered by the selling party.

Elad Cohen (was: Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond)

[Ronald F. Guilmette]

In message , Elad Cohen  wrote:

>Please see the following link:
>
>https://afrinic.net/resource-certification
>
>As you can see, a MyAFRINIC account is required.
>
>Yes, route objects for legacy AFRINIC resources in their RIR operated IRRDB
> as a fallback for RPKI can be created and they were created by us.


What Mr. Cohen continues to dance around is the inconvenient truth that
even if he had an AFRINIC account, this would neither help nor explain
his thefts of the several AFRINIC -and- APNIC region blocks that I have
already listed here.

RIPE Routing History reveals the truth, for anyone who wishes to consult
that historical data, and I also have plenty of saved traceroutes for
each of those APNIC blocks, as well as all of the others that Mr. Cohen
stole from the AFRINIC region.

Those were all helpfully routed, until quite recently, to Mr. Cohen, and
by Mr. Cohen's dear friends at FDCServers and Cogent.

Come now Mr. Cohen, please do tell us who you paid for rights to the
168.198.0.0/16 block, which belongs to the Australian government, and
which your pals at Cogent and FDCServers were routing to you until
quite recently.  Who did you pay and how much did you pay for your
"rights" to the City of Cape Town's 165.25.0.0/16 block?

It's OK.  No need to be shy.  Show us the your sales reciepts for those
blocks please!  We could all use a good laugh today.

Alternatively, if you can't or won't show us that, then at least have the
decency to admit that you're a liar, a fraud, and a con man, and that
until I caught you, you were stealing all of the IPv4 space that wasn't
nailed down in both the AFRINIC region and the APNIC region.

Did you seriously think that you could get away with all this and that
nobody would even notice?  If so, then you're even dumber that you look
in all of the online pictures of you I've seen.


Regards,
rfg

Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

[Christopher Morrow]

On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 11:54 AM Elad Cohen  wrote:
>
> Please see the following link:
>
> https://afrinic.net/resource-certification
>
> As you can see, a MyAFRINIC account is required.
>

seems like you should do this step, then do the rpki step.

> Yes, route objects for legacy AFRINIC resources in their RIR operated IRRDB 
> as a fallback for RPKI can be created and they were created by us.
>
> 
> From: Martijn Schmidt 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 1:45 AM
> To: Elad Cohen ; nanog@nanog.org ; Martijn 
> Schmidt 
> Subject: Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond
>
> Hi Elad,
>
> Is this policy officially documented by AFRINIC somewhere? Can you make route 
> objects for legacy AFRINIC resources in their RIR operated IRRDB as a 
> fallback for RPKI?
>
> Best regards,
> Martijn 
> From: Elad Cohen 
> Sent: 18 September 2019 00:40:13
> To: Martijn Schmidt ; nanog@nanog.org 
> 
> Subject: Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond
>
> Hello Martin, unfortunately RPKI is not yet technically possible for a legacy 
> range in Afrinic.
> 
> From: Martijn Schmidt 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 11:44 PM
> To: Elad Cohen ; Ronald F. Guilmette 
> ; nanog@nanog.org ; Martijn Schmidt 
> 
> Subject: Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond
>
> Hi Elad,
>
> If you were to create RPKI ROAs for the IPs in question that'd end the 
> discussion about prefix ownership once and for all. It's the best way to 
> definitively prove, in public, that the accusations of theft are false. And 
> it also helps to protect your resources from accidental leaks or hijacks, so 
> that's a nice bonus. :)
>
> Best regards,
> Martijn Schmidt ________
> From: NANOG  on behalf of Elad Cohen 
> 
> Sent: 17 September 2019 11:09:19
> To: Ronald F. Guilmette ; nanog@nanog.org 
> 
> Subject: Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond
>
> The defamatory and invective words, the mudslinging and slander of my name, 
> by Ronald Guilmette, are not true at all and they are completely false, in my 
> hand there are all the purchases approval for purchasing ipv4 and that were 
> paid completely by me.
>
> Anyone who wants confirmation the ips belong to us can sent me a direct 
> e-mail and i would be happy to explain and provide evidence. thank you.
> ____
> From: NANOG  on behalf of Ronald F. Guilmette 
> 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 7:07 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org 
> Subject: Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond
>
> In message ,
> "Stephen M."  wrote:
>
> >Please don't praise or complain like we're supposed to take
> >it at a total face value. If you don=E2=80=99t like them so much - we are
> >you're audience. Explain.
> >
> >If you like Cogent - explain.
> >If you don=E2=80=99t like Cogent - explain.
>
> I see that many others have already chimed in to comment on Cogent's
> technical prowess, or lack thereof, and on Cogent's customer service,
> or lack thereof.
>
> These things are neither my forte nor my concern.  My issue with the company
> is what I believe is, and rightly should be a meta-issue that should be of
> overriding concern of all who use or work on the Internet, i.e. the degree
> to which the company, wittingly or othewise, has enabled theft or squatting
> on -numerous- large chunks of IPv4 space by what amount to Internet criminals.
>
> I already detailed my concerns here, and quite recently:
>
>https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2019-September/102944.html
>
> The case is both clear and unambiguous.  Some little guy by the name of Elad
> Cohen, living and working in Israel, who has some little two-bit "hosting"
> company, has been, in very recent times, rather blatantly squatting on
> numerous previously abandoned legacy blocks...  /16 after /16 after /16...
> perhaps 20 or more such blocks... all of them being used, self evidently,
> by Mr. Cohen, and many most or all of which Mr. Cohen demonstratably has
> no legitimate rights to whatsoever... like the blocks he squatted on which
> belong to the Australian national government's Department of Finance, and
> another seemingly abandoned legacy /16 that belongs to the City of Cape
> Town, South Africa.
>
> And who were the primary enablers of all of this fraud and theft?  Well,
> it was Mr. Cohen's helpful friends at a hosting company called FDCServers,
> headquartered in the one American city most known for its high ideals
> and consistantly ethical behavior, Chicago.  FDCServers is not a big
> company, so I have to assume that its

Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

[Elad Cohen]

Please see the following link:

https://afrinic.net/resource-certification

As you can see, a MyAFRINIC account is required.

Yes, route objects for legacy AFRINIC resources in their RIR operated IRRDB as 
a fallback for RPKI can be created and they were created by us.


From: Martijn Schmidt 
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 1:45 AM
To: Elad Cohen ; nanog@nanog.org ; Martijn 
Schmidt 
Subject: Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

Hi Elad,

Is this policy officially documented by AFRINIC somewhere? Can you make route 
objects for legacy AFRINIC resources in their RIR operated IRRDB as a fallback 
for RPKI?

Best regards,
Martijn

From: Elad Cohen 
Sent: 18 September 2019 00:40:13
To: Martijn Schmidt ; nanog@nanog.org 
Subject: Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

Hello Martin, unfortunately RPKI is not yet technically possible for a legacy 
range in Afrinic.

From: Martijn Schmidt 
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 11:44 PM
To: Elad Cohen ; Ronald F. Guilmette 
; nanog@nanog.org ; Martijn Schmidt 

Subject: Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

Hi Elad,

If you were to create RPKI ROAs for the IPs in question that'd end the 
discussion about prefix ownership once and for all. It's the best way to 
definitively prove, in public, that the accusations of theft are false. And it 
also helps to protect your resources from accidental leaks or hijacks, so 
that's a nice bonus. :)

Best regards,
Martijn Schmidt

From: NANOG  on behalf of Elad Cohen 
Sent: 17 September 2019 11:09:19
To: Ronald F. Guilmette ; nanog@nanog.org 

Subject: Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

The defamatory and invective words, the mudslinging and slander of my name, by 
Ronald Guilmette, are not true at all and they are completely false, in my hand 
there are all the purchases approval for purchasing ipv4 and that were paid 
completely by me.

Anyone who wants confirmation the ips belong to us can sent me a direct e-mail 
and i would be happy to explain and provide evidence. thank you.

From: NANOG  on behalf of Ronald F. Guilmette 

Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 7:07 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Subject: Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

In message ,
"Stephen M."  wrote:

>Please don't praise or complain like we're supposed to take
>it at a total face value. If you don=E2=80=99t like them so much - we are
>you're audience. Explain.
>
>If you like Cogent - explain.
>If you don=E2=80=99t like Cogent - explain.

I see that many others have already chimed in to comment on Cogent's
technical prowess, or lack thereof, and on Cogent's customer service,
or lack thereof.

These things are neither my forte nor my concern.  My issue with the company
is what I believe is, and rightly should be a meta-issue that should be of
overriding concern of all who use or work on the Internet, i.e. the degree
to which the company, wittingly or othewise, has enabled theft or squatting
on -numerous- large chunks of IPv4 space by what amount to Internet criminals.

I already detailed my concerns here, and quite recently:

   https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2019-September/102944.html

The case is both clear and unambiguous.  Some little guy by the name of Elad
Cohen, living and working in Israel, who has some little two-bit "hosting"
company, has been, in very recent times, rather blatantly squatting on
numerous previously abandoned legacy blocks...  /16 after /16 after /16...
perhaps 20 or more such blocks... all of them being used, self evidently,
by Mr. Cohen, and many most or all of which Mr. Cohen demonstratably has
no legitimate rights to whatsoever... like the blocks he squatted on which
belong to the Australian national government's Department of Finance, and
another seemingly abandoned legacy /16 that belongs to the City of Cape
Town, South Africa.

And who were the primary enablers of all of this fraud and theft?  Well,
it was Mr. Cohen's helpful friends at a hosting company called FDCServers,
headquartered in the one American city most known for its high ideals
and consistantly ethical behavior, Chicago.  FDCServers is not a big
company, so I have to assume that its CEO, Mr. Petr Kral, was not entirely
oblivious to Mr. Cohen's crooked shenanigans, especially after I personally
and explicitly informed him of it all.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/fdcservers

But the thing of it is that FDCServers, which appears to be a major customer
of Cogent, does none of its own routing, preferring instead to have their
bigger pals, Cogent (AS174) route all of this stolen IPv4 real estate to
their customer, Mr. Cohen, on their behalf which Cogent apparently
continued to do, right up through and including this past weekend, e.g.
for the stolen blocks 165.53.0.0/16 and 168.206.0.0/16.

My beef with both Cogent and

Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

[Elad Cohen]

Hello Martin, unfortunately RPKI is not yet technically possible for a legacy 
range in Afrinic.

From: Martijn Schmidt 
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 11:44 PM
To: Elad Cohen ; Ronald F. Guilmette 
; nanog@nanog.org ; Martijn Schmidt 

Subject: Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

Hi Elad,

If you were to create RPKI ROAs for the IPs in question that'd end the 
discussion about prefix ownership once and for all. It's the best way to 
definitively prove, in public, that the accusations of theft are false. And it 
also helps to protect your resources from accidental leaks or hijacks, so 
that's a nice bonus. :)

Best regards,
Martijn Schmidt

From: NANOG  on behalf of Elad Cohen 
Sent: 17 September 2019 11:09:19
To: Ronald F. Guilmette ; nanog@nanog.org 

Subject: Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

The defamatory and invective words, the mudslinging and slander of my name, by 
Ronald Guilmette, are not true at all and they are completely false, in my hand 
there are all the purchases approval for purchasing ipv4 and that were paid 
completely by me.

Anyone who wants confirmation the ips belong to us can sent me a direct e-mail 
and i would be happy to explain and provide evidence. thank you.

From: NANOG  on behalf of Ronald F. Guilmette 

Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 7:07 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Subject: Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

In message ,
"Stephen M."  wrote:

>Please don't praise or complain like we're supposed to take
>it at a total face value. If you don=E2=80=99t like them so much - we are
>you're audience. Explain.
>
>If you like Cogent - explain.
>If you don=E2=80=99t like Cogent - explain.

I see that many others have already chimed in to comment on Cogent's
technical prowess, or lack thereof, and on Cogent's customer service,
or lack thereof.

These things are neither my forte nor my concern.  My issue with the company
is what I believe is, and rightly should be a meta-issue that should be of
overriding concern of all who use or work on the Internet, i.e. the degree
to which the company, wittingly or othewise, has enabled theft or squatting
on -numerous- large chunks of IPv4 space by what amount to Internet criminals.

I already detailed my concerns here, and quite recently:

   https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2019-September/102944.html

The case is both clear and unambiguous.  Some little guy by the name of Elad
Cohen, living and working in Israel, who has some little two-bit "hosting"
company, has been, in very recent times, rather blatantly squatting on
numerous previously abandoned legacy blocks...  /16 after /16 after /16...
perhaps 20 or more such blocks... all of them being used, self evidently,
by Mr. Cohen, and many most or all of which Mr. Cohen demonstratably has
no legitimate rights to whatsoever... like the blocks he squatted on which
belong to the Australian national government's Department of Finance, and
another seemingly abandoned legacy /16 that belongs to the City of Cape
Town, South Africa.

And who were the primary enablers of all of this fraud and theft?  Well,
it was Mr. Cohen's helpful friends at a hosting company called FDCServers,
headquartered in the one American city most known for its high ideals
and consistantly ethical behavior, Chicago.  FDCServers is not a big
company, so I have to assume that its CEO, Mr. Petr Kral, was not entirely
oblivious to Mr. Cohen's crooked shenanigans, especially after I personally
and explicitly informed him of it all.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/fdcservers

But the thing of it is that FDCServers, which appears to be a major customer
of Cogent, does none of its own routing, preferring instead to have their
bigger pals, Cogent (AS174) route all of this stolen IPv4 real estate to
their customer, Mr. Cohen, on their behalf which Cogent apparently
continued to do, right up through and including this past weekend, e.g.
for the stolen blocks 165.53.0.0/16 and 168.206.0.0/16.

My beef with both Cogent and FDCServers is simple.  They both took Cohen's
money and quite clearly didn't ask -any- reasonable questions, prefering
instead to just accept Cohen's blatant forgeries as "evidence" of his
ownership of the stolen blocks they routed for him.  And they continued
to do that, and only that, until well after I had explicitly and quite
pointedly informed them of the self-evident problems with Mr. Cohen and
his blatantly crooked business model.

The crimes of Cogent and FDCServers, such as they are, do not rise to the
level of "receiving stolen property", but I do think that they qualify
under the heading of -transporting- stolen property.  And believe me,
if a cop pulls you over while you are driving your van, looks in the
back and finds a whole lot of stolen bicycles that were ripped off from
a nearby University campus, your pro

Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

[Carlos Friaças via NANOG]

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 6:46 PM Martijn Schmidt via NANOG
 wrote:


Hi Elad,

Is this policy officially documented by AFRINIC somewhere? Can you make route 
objects for legacy AFRINIC resources in their RIR operated IRRDB as a fallback 
for RPKI?

Best regards,
Martijn 
From: Elad Cohen 
Sent: 18 September 2019 00:40:13
To: Martijn Schmidt ; nanog@nanog.org 
Subject: Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

Hello Martin, unfortunately RPKI is not yet technically possible for a legacy 
range in Afrinic.
_


Hi,

https://afrinic.net/membership/legacy-resource

"AFRINIC encourages legacy resource holders to become AFRINIC members and 
to take advantage of all services it offers to its members".


What i can read from this is: Yes, it's possible, but it won't be "free".

Maybe hostmas...@afrinic.net (Cc:'ed) can clarify... :-)

Cheers,
Carlos

Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

[Christopher Morrow]

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 10:56 PM Patrick W. Gilmore  wrote:
>
> On Sep 17, 2019, at 9:46 PM, Christopher Morrow  
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 6:46 PM Martijn Schmidt via NANOG
> >  wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Elad,
> >>
> >> Is this policy officially documented by AFRINIC somewhere? Can you make 
> >> route objects for legacy AFRINIC resources in their RIR operated IRRDB as 
> >> a fallback for RPKI?
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Martijn 
> >> From: Elad Cohen 
> >> Sent: 18 September 2019 00:40:13
> >> To: Martijn Schmidt ; nanog@nanog.org 
> >> 
> >> Subject: Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond
> >>
> >> Hello Martin, unfortunately RPKI is not yet technically possible for a 
> >> legacy range in Afrinic.
> >> _
> >
> > technically possible to transfer your afrnic space to ripe though,
> > right? and do rpki there.
>
> I do not believe so.

oh :( bummer.

> AFRINIC has no inter-RIR transfer policy. I do not believe the fact it is 
> legacy space matters, AFRINIC won’t let you move it out, and RIPE wouldn’t 
> let you bring it in anyway - AFAIK.
>
> They are the only RIR that does not have an inter-RIR policy. Well, LACNIC 
> just voted one in, but it is not implemented - yet.
>
> --
> TTFN,
> patrick
>

Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

[Bryan Fields]

On 9/16/19 7:21 PM, Mike Lyon wrote:
> 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.

Add in Level3, Telia, ESnet, and I'm sure I'm forgetting others here.

Hurricane Electric even baked them a cake, yet they still wont peer.
-- 
Bryan Fields

727-409-1194 - Voice
http://bryanfields.net

Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

On Sep 17, 2019, at 9:46 PM, Christopher Morrow  wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 6:46 PM Martijn Schmidt via NANOG
>  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Elad,
>> 
>> Is this policy officially documented by AFRINIC somewhere? Can you make 
>> route objects for legacy AFRINIC resources in their RIR operated IRRDB as a 
>> fallback for RPKI?
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Martijn 
>> From: Elad Cohen 
>> Sent: 18 September 2019 00:40:13
>> To: Martijn Schmidt ; nanog@nanog.org 
>> 
>> Subject: Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond
>> 
>> Hello Martin, unfortunately RPKI is not yet technically possible for a 
>> legacy range in Afrinic.
>> _
> 
> technically possible to transfer your afrnic space to ripe though,
> right? and do rpki there.

I do not believe so.

AFRINIC has no inter-RIR transfer policy. I do not believe the fact it is 
legacy space matters, AFRINIC won’t let you move it out, and RIPE wouldn’t let 
you bring it in anyway - AFAIK.

They are the only RIR that does not have an inter-RIR policy. Well, LACNIC just 
voted one in, but it is not implemented - yet.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick

Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

[Christopher Morrow]

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 6:46 PM Martijn Schmidt via NANOG
 wrote:
>
> Hi Elad,
>
> Is this policy officially documented by AFRINIC somewhere? Can you make route 
> objects for legacy AFRINIC resources in their RIR operated IRRDB as a 
> fallback for RPKI?
>
> Best regards,
> Martijn 
> From: Elad Cohen 
> Sent: 18 September 2019 00:40:13
> To: Martijn Schmidt ; nanog@nanog.org 
> 
> Subject: Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond
>
> Hello Martin, unfortunately RPKI is not yet technically possible for a legacy 
> range in Afrinic.
> _

technically possible to transfer your afrnic space to ripe though,
right? and do rpki there.

Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

[Martijn Schmidt via NANOG]

Hi Elad,

Is this policy officially documented by AFRINIC somewhere? Can you make route 
objects for legacy AFRINIC resources in their RIR operated IRRDB as a fallback 
for RPKI?

Best regards,
Martijn

From: Elad Cohen 
Sent: 18 September 2019 00:40:13
To: Martijn Schmidt ; nanog@nanog.org 
Subject: Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

Hello Martin, unfortunately RPKI is not yet technically possible for a legacy 
range in Afrinic.

From: Martijn Schmidt 
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 11:44 PM
To: Elad Cohen ; Ronald F. Guilmette 
; nanog@nanog.org ; Martijn Schmidt 

Subject: Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

Hi Elad,

If you were to create RPKI ROAs for the IPs in question that'd end the 
discussion about prefix ownership once and for all. It's the best way to 
definitively prove, in public, that the accusations of theft are false. And it 
also helps to protect your resources from accidental leaks or hijacks, so 
that's a nice bonus. :)

Best regards,
Martijn Schmidt

From: NANOG  on behalf of Elad Cohen 
Sent: 17 September 2019 11:09:19
To: Ronald F. Guilmette ; nanog@nanog.org 

Subject: Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

The defamatory and invective words, the mudslinging and slander of my name, by 
Ronald Guilmette, are not true at all and they are completely false, in my hand 
there are all the purchases approval for purchasing ipv4 and that were paid 
completely by me.

Anyone who wants confirmation the ips belong to us can sent me a direct e-mail 
and i would be happy to explain and provide evidence. thank you.

From: NANOG  on behalf of Ronald F. Guilmette 

Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 7:07 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Subject: Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

In message ,
"Stephen M."  wrote:

>Please don't praise or complain like we're supposed to take
>it at a total face value. If you don=E2=80=99t like them so much - we are
>you're audience. Explain.
>
>If you like Cogent - explain.
>If you don=E2=80=99t like Cogent - explain.

I see that many others have already chimed in to comment on Cogent's
technical prowess, or lack thereof, and on Cogent's customer service,
or lack thereof.

These things are neither my forte nor my concern.  My issue with the company
is what I believe is, and rightly should be a meta-issue that should be of
overriding concern of all who use or work on the Internet, i.e. the degree
to which the company, wittingly or othewise, has enabled theft or squatting
on -numerous- large chunks of IPv4 space by what amount to Internet criminals.

I already detailed my concerns here, and quite recently:

   https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2019-September/102944.html

The case is both clear and unambiguous.  Some little guy by the name of Elad
Cohen, living and working in Israel, who has some little two-bit "hosting"
company, has been, in very recent times, rather blatantly squatting on
numerous previously abandoned legacy blocks...  /16 after /16 after /16...
perhaps 20 or more such blocks... all of them being used, self evidently,
by Mr. Cohen, and many most or all of which Mr. Cohen demonstratably has
no legitimate rights to whatsoever... like the blocks he squatted on which
belong to the Australian national government's Department of Finance, and
another seemingly abandoned legacy /16 that belongs to the City of Cape
Town, South Africa.

And who were the primary enablers of all of this fraud and theft?  Well,
it was Mr. Cohen's helpful friends at a hosting company called FDCServers,
headquartered in the one American city most known for its high ideals
and consistantly ethical behavior, Chicago.  FDCServers is not a big
company, so I have to assume that its CEO, Mr. Petr Kral, was not entirely
oblivious to Mr. Cohen's crooked shenanigans, especially after I personally
and explicitly informed him of it all.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/fdcservers

But the thing of it is that FDCServers, which appears to be a major customer
of Cogent, does none of its own routing, preferring instead to have their
bigger pals, Cogent (AS174) route all of this stolen IPv4 real estate to
their customer, Mr. Cohen, on their behalf which Cogent apparently
continued to do, right up through and including this past weekend, e.g.
for the stolen blocks 165.53.0.0/16 and 168.206.0.0/16.

My beef with both Cogent and FDCServers is simple.  They both took Cohen's
money and quite clearly didn't ask -any- reasonable questions, prefering
instead to just accept Cohen's blatant forgeries as "evidence" of his
ownership of the stolen blocks they routed for him.  And they continued
to do that, and only that, until well after I had explicitly and quite
pointedly informed them of the self-evident problems with Mr. Cohen and
his blatantly crooked business model.

The crimes of Coge

Re: RPKI (was: Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond)

[Martijn Schmidt via NANOG]

Hi Ronald,

I think we have to place our trust somewhere somehow.. I certainly don't have 
the time nor the skill-set which would be needed to perform due diligence on 
the ownership of every IP block on the Internet, and though you make a laudable 
effort of it yourself this responsibility can't be borne in its entirety by one 
volunteering person. It just doesn't scale.

Given that there is (or should be) an unbroken chain of contracts and payments 
from IANA to RIR (to NIR) to LIR and beyond for all non-legacy resources, I'd 
say they are in a pretty good position to take care of the due diligence work 
to validate an organisation's ownership as well as its associated resources and 
subsequently publish the result through a cryptographic signature. If one of 
the RIRs or NIRs is not doing that job properly then we should (at first 
privately) call them out on it and push them to improve.

Best regards,
Martijn

From: NANOG  on behalf of Ronald F. Guilmette 

Sent: 17 September 2019 23:48:06
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Subject: RPKI (was: Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond)

In message 
,
Martijn Schmidt  wrote:

>Hi Elad,
>
>If you were to create RPKI ROAs for the IPs in question...

Thanks Martijn, for reminding me of a follow-up point that I had intended
to make regarding my recent post about the 143.95.0.0/16 (Athenix) block.

RPKI is the best we have and I cannot wait for the day when it will see
universal deployment.  But it isn't actually the 100% solution that
everyone has been hoping it would be.

As the case of the 143.95.0.0/16 block illustrates, if the RIR has itself
been snookered into believing that party X actually owns party Y's block,
then that's it.  Game over, and RPKI doesn't help, because if the
RIR believes that you own the block, and if you are insisting on
driving it off the lot, right now, today, then they *are* going to give
you the keys, even if the "keys", in future, will include some additional
RPKI mumbo jumbo, along with WHOIS records reflecting your desired public
persona, and reverse DNS delegation, etc.

In short, it appears to me that RPKI only secures resources from the RIR
outwards, and if there is a problem of either competency or trust within
the RIR, then RPKI can't and won't solve that...

... but I feel sure that someone will correct me if I'm wrong.


Regards,
rfg

Re: RPKI (was: Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond)

[Christopher Morrow]

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 5:49 PM Ronald F. Guilmette
 wrote:
>
> In message 
> ,
> Martijn Schmidt  wrote:
>
> >Hi Elad,
> >
> >If you were to create RPKI ROAs for the IPs in question...
>
> Thanks Martijn, for reminding me of a follow-up point that I had intended
> to make regarding my recent post about the 143.95.0.0/16 (Athenix) block.
>
> RPKI is the best we have and I cannot wait for the day when it will see
> universal deployment.  But it isn't actually the 100% solution that
> everyone has been hoping it would be.
>
> As the case of the 143.95.0.0/16 block illustrates, if the RIR has itself
> been snookered into believing that party X actually owns party Y's block,
> then that's it.  Game over, and RPKI doesn't help, because if the

I really don't think this part of the problem matters.
If a block is moved from one entity to another, that's it, nothing to
be done/seen here.

it's sad and someone should weep for the lost integers, but.. meh.
The RIR abuse process can cleanup as required mr curran's notes about:
"please send to fraud@"
would apply here directly.

-chris

Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

[Martijn Schmidt via NANOG]

Hi Elad,

If you were to create RPKI ROAs for the IPs in question that'd end the 
discussion about prefix ownership once and for all. It's the best way to 
definitively prove, in public, that the accusations of theft are false. And it 
also helps to protect your resources from accidental leaks or hijacks, so 
that's a nice bonus. :)

Best regards,
Martijn Schmidt

From: NANOG  on behalf of Elad Cohen 
Sent: 17 September 2019 11:09:19
To: Ronald F. Guilmette ; nanog@nanog.org 

Subject: Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

The defamatory and invective words, the mudslinging and slander of my name, by 
Ronald Guilmette, are not true at all and they are completely false, in my hand 
there are all the purchases approval for purchasing ipv4 and that were paid 
completely by me.

Anyone who wants confirmation the ips belong to us can sent me a direct e-mail 
and i would be happy to explain and provide evidence. thank you.

From: NANOG  on behalf of Ronald F. Guilmette 

Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 7:07 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Subject: Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

In message ,
"Stephen M."  wrote:

>Please don't praise or complain like we're supposed to take
>it at a total face value. If you don=E2=80=99t like them so much - we are
>you're audience. Explain.
>
>If you like Cogent - explain.
>If you don=E2=80=99t like Cogent - explain.

I see that many others have already chimed in to comment on Cogent's
technical prowess, or lack thereof, and on Cogent's customer service,
or lack thereof.

These things are neither my forte nor my concern.  My issue with the company
is what I believe is, and rightly should be a meta-issue that should be of
overriding concern of all who use or work on the Internet, i.e. the degree
to which the company, wittingly or othewise, has enabled theft or squatting
on -numerous- large chunks of IPv4 space by what amount to Internet criminals.

I already detailed my concerns here, and quite recently:

   https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2019-September/102944.html

The case is both clear and unambiguous.  Some little guy by the name of Elad
Cohen, living and working in Israel, who has some little two-bit "hosting"
company, has been, in very recent times, rather blatantly squatting on
numerous previously abandoned legacy blocks...  /16 after /16 after /16...
perhaps 20 or more such blocks... all of them being used, self evidently,
by Mr. Cohen, and many most or all of which Mr. Cohen demonstratably has
no legitimate rights to whatsoever... like the blocks he squatted on which
belong to the Australian national government's Department of Finance, and
another seemingly abandoned legacy /16 that belongs to the City of Cape
Town, South Africa.

And who were the primary enablers of all of this fraud and theft?  Well,
it was Mr. Cohen's helpful friends at a hosting company called FDCServers,
headquartered in the one American city most known for its high ideals
and consistantly ethical behavior, Chicago.  FDCServers is not a big
company, so I have to assume that its CEO, Mr. Petr Kral, was not entirely
oblivious to Mr. Cohen's crooked shenanigans, especially after I personally
and explicitly informed him of it all.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/fdcservers

But the thing of it is that FDCServers, which appears to be a major customer
of Cogent, does none of its own routing, preferring instead to have their
bigger pals, Cogent (AS174) route all of this stolen IPv4 real estate to
their customer, Mr. Cohen, on their behalf which Cogent apparently
continued to do, right up through and including this past weekend, e.g.
for the stolen blocks 165.53.0.0/16 and 168.206.0.0/16.

My beef with both Cogent and FDCServers is simple.  They both took Cohen's
money and quite clearly didn't ask -any- reasonable questions, prefering
instead to just accept Cohen's blatant forgeries as "evidence" of his
ownership of the stolen blocks they routed for him.  And they continued
to do that, and only that, until well after I had explicitly and quite
pointedly informed them of the self-evident problems with Mr. Cohen and
his blatantly crooked business model.

The crimes of Cogent and FDCServers, such as they are, do not rise to the
level of "receiving stolen property", but I do think that they qualify
under the heading of -transporting- stolen property.  And believe me,
if a cop pulls you over while you are driving your van, looks in the
back and finds a whole lot of stolen bicycles that were ripped off from
a nearby University campus, your protestations that you were "only
delivering them to a friend" won't wash to get you out of a short stint
in the Graybar Hotel.

Cohen, with the help of FDCServers and Cogent, stole millions of dollars
worth of valuable IPv4 real estate.  Unfortunately, due to the lack of
sophistication of crinminal authorities, com

Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

[Randy Bush]

> The defamatory and invective words, the mudslinging and slander of my
> name, by Ronald Guilmette

is he a cogent sales rep?  that would explain a lot!

Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

[Elad Cohen]

The defamatory and invective words, the mudslinging and slander of my name, by 
Ronald Guilmette, are not true at all and they are completely false, in my hand 
there are all the purchases approval for purchasing ipv4 and that were paid 
completely by me.

Anyone who wants confirmation the ips belong to us can sent me a direct e-mail 
and i would be happy to explain and provide evidence. thank you.

From: NANOG  on behalf of Ronald F. Guilmette 

Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 7:07 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Subject: Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

In message ,
"Stephen M."  wrote:

>Please don't praise or complain like we're supposed to take
>it at a total face value. If you don=E2=80=99t like them so much - we are
>you're audience. Explain.
>
>If you like Cogent - explain.
>If you don=E2=80=99t like Cogent - explain.

I see that many others have already chimed in to comment on Cogent's
technical prowess, or lack thereof, and on Cogent's customer service,
or lack thereof.

These things are neither my forte nor my concern.  My issue with the company
is what I believe is, and rightly should be a meta-issue that should be of
overriding concern of all who use or work on the Internet, i.e. the degree
to which the company, wittingly or othewise, has enabled theft or squatting
on -numerous- large chunks of IPv4 space by what amount to Internet criminals.

I already detailed my concerns here, and quite recently:

   https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2019-September/102944.html

The case is both clear and unambiguous.  Some little guy by the name of Elad
Cohen, living and working in Israel, who has some little two-bit "hosting"
company, has been, in very recent times, rather blatantly squatting on
numerous previously abandoned legacy blocks...  /16 after /16 after /16...
perhaps 20 or more such blocks... all of them being used, self evidently,
by Mr. Cohen, and many most or all of which Mr. Cohen demonstratably has
no legitimate rights to whatsoever... like the blocks he squatted on which
belong to the Australian national government's Department of Finance, and
another seemingly abandoned legacy /16 that belongs to the City of Cape
Town, South Africa.

And who were the primary enablers of all of this fraud and theft?  Well,
it was Mr. Cohen's helpful friends at a hosting company called FDCServers,
headquartered in the one American city most known for its high ideals
and consistantly ethical behavior, Chicago.  FDCServers is not a big
company, so I have to assume that its CEO, Mr. Petr Kral, was not entirely
oblivious to Mr. Cohen's crooked shenanigans, especially after I personally
and explicitly informed him of it all.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/fdcservers

But the thing of it is that FDCServers, which appears to be a major customer
of Cogent, does none of its own routing, preferring instead to have their
bigger pals, Cogent (AS174) route all of this stolen IPv4 real estate to
their customer, Mr. Cohen, on their behalf which Cogent apparently
continued to do, right up through and including this past weekend, e.g.
for the stolen blocks 165.53.0.0/16 and 168.206.0.0/16.

My beef with both Cogent and FDCServers is simple.  They both took Cohen's
money and quite clearly didn't ask -any- reasonable questions, prefering
instead to just accept Cohen's blatant forgeries as "evidence" of his
ownership of the stolen blocks they routed for him.  And they continued
to do that, and only that, until well after I had explicitly and quite
pointedly informed them of the self-evident problems with Mr. Cohen and
his blatantly crooked business model.

The crimes of Cogent and FDCServers, such as they are, do not rise to the
level of "receiving stolen property", but I do think that they qualify
under the heading of -transporting- stolen property.  And believe me,
if a cop pulls you over while you are driving your van, looks in the
back and finds a whole lot of stolen bicycles that were ripped off from
a nearby University campus, your protestations that you were "only
delivering them to a friend" won't wash to get you out of a short stint
in the Graybar Hotel.

Cohen, with the help of FDCServers and Cogent, stole millions of dollars
worth of valuable IPv4 real estate.  Unfortunately, due to the lack of
sophistication of crinminal authorities, combined with the trans-border
and international nature of these crimes, Cohen will undoubtedly walk,
as will Cogent and FDCServers.  (So much for equal justice under law!)
But I'll tell you straight up that I personally wouldn't trust any of
these clowns to hold my wallet, not even for five minutes, and not even
if it were empty.


Regards,
rfg

Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

[Ronald F. Guilmette]

In message , Elad Cohen  wrote:

>The defamatory and invective words, the mudslinging and slander of my name,
> by Ronald Guilmette, are not true at all and they are completely false, in
> my hand there are all the purchases approval for purchasing ipv4 and that
>were paid completely by me.
>
>Anyone who wants confirmation the ips belong to us can sent me a direct
>e-mail and i would be happy to explain and provide evidence. thank you.

You can stop dancing around the issue Mr. Cohen, and come clean, any time
you want.  Like for example right here and right now.  Stop prevaricating.
Put up or shut up.  Either that or have the decency to admit that you are
dyed-in-the-wool con man and fraud, as your onetime pals at Cogent and
FDCServers have apparently finally figured out.

By all means, show us all of these allged "purchase approvals" you have
for the following blocks which you managed... temporarily at least... to
get your compliant pals at Cogent and FDCSewers to route for you:


APNIC region:
168.198.0.0/16 -- Department of Finance and Deregulation (AU)
139.44.0.0/16  -- Port of Melbourne Authority (AU)
143.136.0.0/16
143.253.0.0/16
146.51.0.0/16

AFRINIC region:
168.206.0.0/16
160.122.0.0/16
163.198.0.0/16
165.3.0.0/16
196.16.0.0/14
196.193.0.0/16
155.159.0.0/16
163.197.0.0/16
164.155.0.0/16
165.25.0.0/16 -- City of Cape Town
196.15.64.0/18
160.121.0.0/16
155.235.0.0/16
196.10.64.0/19
160.116.0.0/16
168.206.0.0/16 -- The Atomic Energy Board (South Africa)
165.52.0.0/14  -- Cape of Good Hope Bank (South Africa)


For one little guy, you sure managed to accumulate one hell of huge
stash of IPv4 addresses!  Well over $30 million dollars worth, in fact.

So please Mr. Cohen, by all means, please do tell us what all of these
mountains of IPv4 addresses cost you, who you paid for them, and what
exactly you planned to do with them, and with whom.  Please do show us
any and all documentation you have of your alleged "purchases".  I'm sure
that we are all keen to see how you cleverly outwitted all other bidders
to come out on top in the bidding war for the City of Cape Town's block
or for the one you apparently lifted from the Australian Department of
Finance and Deregulation.

But please, don't insult our intelligence by showing us more of those
blatantly fradulent "LOAs" that were presented in the MyBroadband.co.za
report.  As I've already pointed out here, no self respecting forger
would even have tried to pass those.  The perfectly identical signatures
and vaguely official-looking stamps on all of them render them not even
third-rate forgeries.

Oh!  And by the way Mr. Cohen, as it happens I myself am the proud owner
of a perfectly valid "purchase approval" for the Brooklyn Bridge.  So you
see, we have something in common!

Looking forward to you next missive.


Love and kisses,
rfg

Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

[Ronald F. Guilmette]

In message , 
"Stephen M."  wrote:

>Please don't praise or complain like we're supposed to take
>it at a total face value. If you don=E2=80=99t like them so much - we are
>you're audience. Explain.
>
>If you like Cogent - explain.
>If you don=E2=80=99t like Cogent - explain.

I see that many others have already chimed in to comment on Cogent's
technical prowess, or lack thereof, and on Cogent's customer service,
or lack thereof.

These things are neither my forte nor my concern.  My issue with the company
is what I believe is, and rightly should be a meta-issue that should be of
overriding concern of all who use or work on the Internet, i.e. the degree
to which the company, wittingly or othewise, has enabled theft or squatting
on -numerous- large chunks of IPv4 space by what amount to Internet criminals.

I already detailed my concerns here, and quite recently:

   https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2019-September/102944.html

The case is both clear and unambiguous.  Some little guy by the name of Elad
Cohen, living and working in Israel, who has some little two-bit "hosting"
company, has been, in very recent times, rather blatantly squatting on
numerous previously abandoned legacy blocks...  /16 after /16 after /16...
perhaps 20 or more such blocks... all of them being used, self evidently,
by Mr. Cohen, and many most or all of which Mr. Cohen demonstratably has
no legitimate rights to whatsoever... like the blocks he squatted on which
belong to the Australian national government's Department of Finance, and
another seemingly abandoned legacy /16 that belongs to the City of Cape
Town, South Africa.

And who were the primary enablers of all of this fraud and theft?  Well,
it was Mr. Cohen's helpful friends at a hosting company called FDCServers,
headquartered in the one American city most known for its high ideals
and consistantly ethical behavior, Chicago.  FDCServers is not a big
company, so I have to assume that its CEO, Mr. Petr Kral, was not entirely
oblivious to Mr. Cohen's crooked shenanigans, especially after I personally
and explicitly informed him of it all.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/fdcservers

But the thing of it is that FDCServers, which appears to be a major customer
of Cogent, does none of its own routing, preferring instead to have their
bigger pals, Cogent (AS174) route all of this stolen IPv4 real estate to
their customer, Mr. Cohen, on their behalf which Cogent apparently
continued to do, right up through and including this past weekend, e.g.
for the stolen blocks 165.53.0.0/16 and 168.206.0.0/16.

My beef with both Cogent and FDCServers is simple.  They both took Cohen's
money and quite clearly didn't ask -any- reasonable questions, prefering
instead to just accept Cohen's blatant forgeries as "evidence" of his
ownership of the stolen blocks they routed for him.  And they continued
to do that, and only that, until well after I had explicitly and quite
pointedly informed them of the self-evident problems with Mr. Cohen and
his blatantly crooked business model. 

The crimes of Cogent and FDCServers, such as they are, do not rise to the
level of "receiving stolen property", but I do think that they qualify
under the heading of -transporting- stolen property.  And believe me,
if a cop pulls you over while you are driving your van, looks in the
back and finds a whole lot of stolen bicycles that were ripped off from
a nearby University campus, your protestations that you were "only
delivering them to a friend" won't wash to get you out of a short stint
in the Graybar Hotel.

Cohen, with the help of FDCServers and Cogent, stole millions of dollars
worth of valuable IPv4 real estate.  Unfortunately, due to the lack of
sophistication of crinminal authorities, combined with the trans-border
and international nature of these crimes, Cohen will undoubtedly walk,
as will Cogent and FDCServers.  (So much for equal justice under law!)
But I'll tell you straight up that I personally wouldn't trust any of
these clowns to hold my wallet, not even for five minutes, and not even
if it were empty.


Regards,
rfg

Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

[Randy Bush]

> And why are they not on any public peering exchange? Why only private?

the deeper question is why do they only use green ether cables
when they should use magenta?

tier ones do not push a lot over public ixen.  their choice.
welcome to the realities of the internet.  glad you found us.

randy

Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

[Mike Lyon]

And why are they not on any public peering exchange? Why only private?

> On Sep 16, 2019, at 19:35, Owen DeLong  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>>> On Sep 16, 2019, at 17:48 , Randy Bush  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> or point to them treating ipv6 the same as ipv4 when it comes to
>> peering, tech, ...  we are supposed to think ipv6 parity is a good
>> thing.
>> 
>> randy
> 
> Actually, their peering behavior in IPv4 is not quite as arrogant as it is in 
> IPv6, so no, they aren’t doing parity.
> 
> Owen
> 

Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

[Mike Lyon]

Within the past year or two i’ve seen it occur.

> On Sep 16, 2019, at 18:44, Ben Cannon  wrote:
> 
> “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  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.  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  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  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> In message , 
>> Owen DeLong  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

Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

[Owen DeLong]

> On Sep 16, 2019, at 17:48 , Randy Bush  wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> or point to them treating ipv6 the same as ipv4 when it comes to
> peering, tech, ...  we are supposed to think ipv6 parity is a good
> thing.
> 
> randy

Actually, their peering behavior in IPv4 is not quite as arrogant as it is in 
IPv6, so no, they aren’t doing parity.

Owen

Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

[Christopher Morrow]

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 9:45 PM Ben Cannon  wrote:
>
> “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?
>

isn't any decision about any provider generally:
  "Will they carry my bits reliably, and on a path 'short enough' for
my requirements, at a cost I'm willing to pay?"

Whether cogent, telia, ntt, l3, all carriers have their issues in
certain places... some are the only path to certain other things.
Would you rather deal with a third party's ideas of customer-service
and upgrade/capacity augment? or would you rather be able to do that
directly? (for instance)

> -Ben
>
> > On Sep 16, 2019, at 4:21 PM, Mike Lyon  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.  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  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  
> > wrote:
> >
> > In message ,
> > Owen DeLong  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

Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

[Ben Cannon]

“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  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.  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  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  
> wrote:
> 
> In message , 
> Owen DeLong  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

Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

[Randy Bush]

>>> 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.
>>
>> or point to them treating ipv6 the same as ipv4 when it comes to
>> peering, tech, ...  we are supposed to think ipv6 parity is a good
>> thing.
> 
> Can you elaborate on this? What are they doing/not doing that you take
> issue with?

i am not taking issue; the opposite.

cogent says that it peers v6 if and only if you are a v4 peer.  some
folk seem to think v6 peering should more more promiscuous.  they are
entitled to their opinions :)

Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

[Ross Tajvar]

Ah, sorry, I didn't understand your message. Nevermind.

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 8:53 PM Ross Tajvar  wrote:

> > 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.
>>
>> or point to them treating ipv6 the same as ipv4 when it comes to
>> peering, tech, ...  we are supposed to think ipv6 parity is a good
>> thing.
>>
>
> Can you elaborate on this? What are they doing/not doing that you take
> issue with?
>

Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

[Ross Tajvar]

>
> > 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.
>
> or point to them treating ipv6 the same as ipv4 when it comes to
> peering, tech, ...  we are supposed to think ipv6 parity is a good
> thing.
>

Can you elaborate on this? What are they doing/not doing that you take
issue with?

Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

[Randy Bush]

> 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.

or point to them treating ipv6 the same as ipv4 when it comes to
peering, tech, ...  we are supposed to think ipv6 parity is a good
thing.

randy

Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

[Mike Hammett]

Regarding the latency, it looks like Cogent isn't much worse than anyone else. 
When they are bad, there's typically someone else bad there with them. 


https://www.noction.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/TIER1-AUG-2019.pdf 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Mike Lyon"  
To: "Stephen M."  
Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2019 6:21:37 PM 
Subject: Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond 

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.  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  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  
>>>> wrote: 
>>>> 
>>>> In message , 
>>>> Owen DeLong  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 

RE: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

[Michel Py]

> If you don’t like Cogent - explain.

Besides the peering issues, they can't stop spamming. If after 20 attempts on 
the phone you have not picked up, they start to send email.
They abuse whois. They are one of the primary reasons few people put their real 
phone number in whois.

And I have never talked to that level of incompetence. Tell their sales droids 
that you want a link over RFC 1149, or that you need BGT (instead of BGP), they 
will tell you no problem.
Don't even try to ask anything about communities or RPKI; they can't tell the 
difference between a router and a connected coffee pot. If you must deal with 
them, record everything.

If someone has a cheap Asterisk trick so when the caller ID says COGENT it goes 
directly to Lenny I'll take it.

Michel

TSI Disclaimer:  This message and any files or text attached to it are intended 
only for the recipients named above and contain information that may be 
confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not 
forward, copy, use or otherwise disclose this communication or the information 
contained herein. In the event you have received this message in error, please 
notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, and then delete all 
copies of it from your system. Thank you!...

Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

[Owen DeLong]

> On Sep 16, 2019, at 16:21 , Mike Lyon  wrote:
> 
> The argument has been listed numerous times so i didn’t want to bore people:
> 
> 1. Sprint peering battle. Google it

Amusingly in this particular case, I’d say SPRINT started it as SPRINT was the 
original
"we’re too arrogant to peer with you, buy from us” company.

> 2. He.net peering battle. Google it.
> 3. Google IPv6 peering battle. Google it.
> 
> All of which point to them being pompous assholes.

You left out (as I mentioned earlier) persistent abuse and violation of ARIN 
WHOIS TOS/AUP.

> They also run their links hot which create latency for anything flowing 
> through it.

They seem to have been doing a little bit less of this lately, though…

They are extremely slow to add capacity to existing PNIs when they start to 
congest.

Owen

Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

[Mike Lyon]

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.  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  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  
 wrote:
 
 In message , 
 Owen DeLong  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

Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

[Stephen M.]

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  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  
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> In message , 
>>> Owen DeLong  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

Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

[Mike Lyon]

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  wrote:
> 
> In message , 
> Owen DeLong  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

Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

[Ronald F. Guilmette]

In message , 
Owen DeLong  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

RE: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

[Erik Sundberg]

This last comment made me laugh out loud….
>>> Our sales rep has been great, but unfortunately, for him, every time he 
>>> calls and I ask if Cogent is going to get me IPv6 transit to Google, he has 
>>> to say no, and then I tell him I can’t purchase any more circuits.


From: NANOG  On Behalf Of David Hubbard
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2019 11:36 AM
To: n...@as37662.com n...@as37662.com ; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

Our sales rep has been great, but unfortunately, for him, every time he calls 
and I ask if Cogent is going to get me IPv6 transit to Google, he has to say 
no, and then I tell him I can’t purchase any more circuits.

From: NANOG mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org>> on behalf 
of Owen DeLong mailto:o...@delong.com>>
Date: Monday, September 16, 2019 at 9:20 AM
To: "n...@as37662.com 
n...@as37662.com<mailto:n...@as37662.com%20...@as37662.com>" 
mailto:n...@as37662.com>>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org>" 
mailto:nanog@nanog.org>>
Subject: Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

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.

I’ve had no trouble getting their reps to respond when the decision has come 
from above, but I prefer to avoid doing business with them.

Owen


On Sep 15, 2019, at 13:13 , n...@as37662.com<mailto:n...@as37662.com> 
n...@as37662.com<mailto:n...@as37662.com> 
mailto:n...@as37662.com>> wrote:

Hi fellow network operators,
Do any orgs here have experience with a good Cogent rep? The rep we got via 
Cogent's website is unresponsive to even basic questions. It feels like we are 
dealing with a bot and copy-pasted replies.
Thanks
Ruldu




CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or 
previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain confidential information 
that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person 
responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby 
notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the 
information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY 
PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error please notify the 
sender immediately by replying to this e-mail. You must destroy the original 
transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. Thank 
you.

Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

[David Hubbard]

Our sales rep has been great, but unfortunately, for him, every time he calls 
and I ask if Cogent is going to get me IPv6 transit to Google, he has to say 
no, and then I tell him I can’t purchase any more circuits.

From: NANOG  on behalf of Owen DeLong 
Date: Monday, September 16, 2019 at 9:20 AM
To: "n...@as37662.com n...@as37662.com" 
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" 
Subject: Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

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.

I’ve had no trouble getting their reps to respond when the decision has come 
from above, but I prefer to avoid doing business with them.

Owen



On Sep 15, 2019, at 13:13 , n...@as37662.com<mailto:n...@as37662.com> 
n...@as37662.com<mailto:n...@as37662.com> 
mailto:n...@as37662.com>> wrote:

Hi fellow network operators,
Do any orgs here have experience with a good Cogent rep? The rep we got via 
Cogent's website is unresponsive to even basic questions. It feels like we are 
dealing with a bot and copy-pasted replies.
Thanks
Ruldu

Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

[Mark Stevens]

Probably going to shoot myself in the foot but we have been with Cogent 
for 14 years and I have nothing but praise for their Service,  NOC and 
my Sales Rep who is top notch.


As usual, everyone's mileage will vary but it seems I am on the luckier 
side in having this good experience with Cogent as opposed to others on 
this list.


Mark

On 9/16/2019 12:19 PM, Owen DeLong 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.


I’ve had no trouble getting their reps to respond when the decision 
has come from above, but I prefer to avoid doing business with them.


Owen


On Sep 15, 2019, at 13:13 , n...@as37662.com  
n...@as37662.com  > wrote:


Hi fellow network operators,

Do any orgs here have experience with a good Cogent rep? The rep we 
got via Cogent's website is unresponsive to even basic questions. It 
feels like we are dealing with a bot and copy-pasted replies.


Thanks
Ruldu

Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

[Owen DeLong]

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.

I’ve had no trouble getting their reps to respond when the decision has come 
from above, but I prefer to avoid doing business with them.

Owen


> On Sep 15, 2019, at 13:13 , n...@as37662.com n...@as37662.com 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hi fellow network operators,
> 
> Do any orgs here have experience with a good Cogent rep? The rep we got via 
> Cogent's website is unresponsive to even basic questions. It feels like we 
> are dealing with a bot and copy-pasted replies.
> 
> Thanks
> Ruldu
> 

Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

[Majdi S. Abbas]

On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 04:13:55PM -0400, n...@as37662.com n...@as37662.com 
wrote:
> Do any orgs here have experience with a good Cogent rep? The rep we got 
> via Cogent's website is unresponsive to even basic questions. It feels 
> like we are dealing with a bot and copy-pasted replies.

Just put your real phone number in WHOIS and wait.

--msa

Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

[Fredy Kuenzler]

When they do their cold calls I tend to answer «Call again in 6 months, if you 
are still with Cogent then.» Most sales reps don‘t survive that long. #SCNR 

--
Fredy Kuenzler
Init7 (Switzerland) Ltd.
Technoparkstrasse 5
CH-8406 Winterthur
Switzerland

http://www.init7.net/


> Am 16.09.2019 um 15:30 schrieb Jon Sands :
> 
> The last time I dealt with them, it took a little over 3 months to get them 
> to turn up basic BGP service. To top it off the sales rep was fired in the 
> middle of our deployment. Cogent seems to have higher rep turnover than 
> anything else I've dealt with. Buckle up and have fun!
> 
>> On 9/15/2019 4:13 PM, n...@as37662.com n...@as37662.com wrote:
>> 
>> Hi fellow network operators,
>> 
>> Do any orgs here have experience with a good Cogent rep? The rep we got via 
>> Cogent's website is unresponsive to even basic questions. It feels like we 
>> are dealing with a bot and copy-pasted replies.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> Ruldu
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Jon Sands
> MFI Labs
> https://fohdeesha.com/
> 

Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

[Ben Cannon]

Actually yes, I have a few great contacts over there these days.   Very 
different company from years back.

-Ben.

-Ben Cannon
CEO 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC 
b...@6by7.net 




> On Sep 15, 2019, at 1:13 PM, n...@as37662.com n...@as37662.com 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hi fellow network operators,
> 
> Do any orgs here have experience with a good Cogent rep? The rep we got via 
> Cogent's website is unresponsive to even basic questions. It feels like we 
> are dealing with a bot and copy-pasted replies.
> 
> Thanks
> Ruldu
> 

Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

[Shawn L via NANOG]

I have one who calls me bi-weekly even though we have declined to purchase 
service from them at this time.  I'd be happy to provide contact details 
off-line.
 


-Original Message-
From: "Jon Sands" 
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2019 9:30am
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond



The last time I dealt with them, it took a little over 3 months to get 
them to turn up basic BGP service. To top it off the sales rep was fired 
in the middle of our deployment. Cogent seems to have higher rep 
turnover than anything else I've dealt with. Buckle up and have fun!

On 9/15/2019 4:13 PM, n...@as37662.com n...@as37662.com wrote:
>
> Hi fellow network operators,
>
> Do any orgs here have experience with a good Cogent rep? The rep we 
> got via Cogent's website is unresponsive to even basic questions. It 
> feels like we are dealing with a bot and copy-pasted replies.
>
> Thanks
> Ruldu
>

-- 
Jon Sands
MFI Labs
https://fohdeesha.com/

Re: Cogent sales reps who actually respond

[Jon Sands]

The last time I dealt with them, it took a little over 3 months to get 
them to turn up basic BGP service. To top it off the sales rep was fired 
in the middle of our deployment. Cogent seems to have higher rep 
turnover than anything else I've dealt with. Buckle up and have fun!


On 9/15/2019 4:13 PM, n...@as37662.com n...@as37662.com wrote:


Hi fellow network operators,

Do any orgs here have experience with a good Cogent rep? The rep we 
got via Cogent's website is unresponsive to even basic questions. It 
feels like we are dealing with a bot and copy-pasted replies.


Thanks
Ruldu



--
Jon Sands
MFI Labs
https://fohdeesha.com/