RE: pingability of 2600::

[Gary Sparkes via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>]

It's definitely a long standing issue.

While HE provides a fair amount of primary uplinks for me in various capacities, I often find myself needing to bring 
another blended provider into the mix just to cross the 'cogent bridge' so to speak. I run a fair bit of v6 only stuff 
these days, but only a small amount of traffic comes from that bridge area, so unless you're on cogent directly it's 
almost a non-issue. 

While I can't really speak to cogent's motivations for not doing this, HE is more than happy and willing to, and they 
DO peer on v4, so it's definitely a .... interesting subject, to say the least. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Bush via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org> 
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2026 6:28 PM
To: Elmar K. Bins via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>
Cc: Randy Bush <randy () psg com>
Subject: Re: pingability of 2600::

hi elmar,

yes, it is the old issue of HE and Cogent not peering over IPv6.  the only aspect that bothers me is that it indicates 
a lack of business pressure for IPv6 routability.  IPv6 has farther to go than we might like.

randy
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/L5SRNW5S57YRLAGMTS4GSPA7LMGARCWG/
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/5QB774UQ5K7CM7CZ3AO3HTKSX6AQ2GBR/