Experiences with IPv6 peering?

[Frank Bulk]

To amplify Nick's point, if you use Cogent's IPv6 connectivity you need to
use at least one other IPv6 provider, even if it's a tunnel with Hurricane
Electric that appropriately preprended.  And if you want redundancy when
Cogent is in the mix, you should have a minimum of three IPv6 providers.

For table sizes, see here: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_IPv6_support_by_major_transit_pro
viders

I'd recommend making your Cogent account manager aware of this table.  It
was actually created (by someone else) after I spoke with our (prospective)
Cogent account rep's supervisor who claimed that Cogent was "in line with
their competitors" and "growing like everyone elese". Na, na, na, naah.
They're at the bottom.

Frank

-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6-ops-bounces+frnkblk=iname.com at lists.cluenet.de
[mailto:ipv6-ops-bounces+frnkblk=iname.com at lists.cluenet.de] On Behalf Of
Nick Hilliard
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 10:39 AM
To: Chase Venters
Cc: IPv6 operators forum
Subject: Re: Experiences with IPv6 peering?

On 02/03/2011 16:27, Chase Venters wrote:
> Is this par for the course with IPv6 peering? What kind of improvement are
> we likely to see between now and June?

Welcome to being single homed behind Cogent's ipv6 network.  Your options
are:

1. live with it
2. complain to your account manager at Cogent
3. get ipv6 transit from another provider

As far as I know, a lot of people have tried option #2 and have eventually 
resorted to option #3, either to complement or as a replacement for their 
Cogent connection.

HE's position on this is documented here:

http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2009-October/014017.html

Nick