I think what’s stopping this from being a bigger issue is that neither network has many (if any) single-homed customers that don’t connect on IPv4, which as mentioned previously isn’t partitioned. If there were many IPv6 only eyeballs single-homed behind each network then it would be a bigger issue. Regards, Marty Strong -------------------------------------- CloudFlare - AS13335 Network Engineer marty@cloudflare.com +44 7584 906 055 smartflare (Skype) http://www.peeringdb.com/view.php?asn=13335
On 6 Dec 2015, at 18:38, joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> wrote:
On 12/5/15 9:37 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Dec 4, 2015, at 17:43 , Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
Or, if you feel that Cogent's stubborn insistence on partitioning the global v6 internet
if A does not peer with B, then for all A and B they are evil partitioners?
can we lower the rhetoric?
randy
Does that remain true for values of A where A is willing to peer with B, but B refuses to peer with A?
These are (mostly) reasonable business decisions engaged by (mostly) reasonable actors. both providers have tools available to them to address the partition unilaterally as one of them does in ipv4 where they so inclined.
Neither provider has significant numbers of single homed eyeballs marooned behind them which would be bad.
Owen