An excellent point. Nobody would tolerate this in IPv4 land. Those disputes tended to end in days and weeks (sometimes months), but not years.
That said, as IPv6 is finally gaining traction, I suspect we’ll be seeing less tolerance for this behavior. > On Jan 21, 2016, at 8:30 PM, Matthew Kaufman <matt...@matthew.at> wrote: > > > >> On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:05 PM, Ca By <cb.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Brandon Butterworth <bran...@rd.bbc.co.uk> >> wrote: >> >>>>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:07 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman < >>> mharde...@ipifony.com> wrote: >>>>> Since Cogent is clearly the bad actor here (the burden being >>>>> Cogent's to prove otherwise because HE is publicly on record as saying >>>>> that theyd love to peer with Cogent) >>> >>> I'd like to peer with all tier 1's, they are thus all bad as >>> they won't. >>> >>> HE decided they want to be transit free for v6 and set out on >>> a campaign of providing free tunnels/transit/peering to establish >>> this. Cogent, for all their faults, are free to not accept the >>> offer. >>> >>> Can the Cogent bashing stop now, save it for when they do something >>> properly bad. >>> >>> brandon >> >> Selling a service that is considered internet but does not deliver full >> internet access is generally considered properly bad. >> >> I would not do business with either company, since neither of them provide >> a full view. >> >> CB > > I note that if IPv6 was actually important, neither one could have gotten > away with it for so long. > > Matthew Kaufman > > (Sent from my iPhone)
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
