Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

[Hunter Fuller <hf0002+nanog () uah edu>]

I think the implication is that, on Cogent, there isn't. :)

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 14:00 Chuck Anderson <cra () wpi edu> wrote:

> Define "good" vs. "bad" transport of bits.  As long as there is
> adequate bandwidth and low latency, who cares?
>
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 08:30:37PM +0100, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
> > That will have the effect of prioritizing Cogent routes as that would be
> > more specific than the default routes from the other providers. Cogent
> are
> > not that good that you would want to do that.
> >
> > Den 2. mar. 2017 20.16 skrev "Jeff Waddell" <
> jeff+nanog () waddellsolutions com
> > > :
> >
> > Or at least ask for a full view from Cogent - then you won't get any
> routes
> > they don't have
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Alarig Le Lay <alarig () swordarmor fr>
> wrote:
> > > On jeu.  2 mars 12:36:04 2017, Aaron Gould wrote:
> > > > Well, I asked my (3) upstream providers to only send me a ipv6
> default
> > > > route and they sent me ::/0...here's one of them...
> > >
> > > Why did you don’t ask for a full view? With that, you can easily deal
> > > with that kind of problem.