Was wrong Re: Did IPv6 between HE and Google ever get resolved?
Oops, I was corrected that HE doesn’t have IPv6 issues with Google, not sure why I had that in my head. Cogent certainly does but something had me thinking there’s another big name that has the same problem. David From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> on behalf of David Hubbard <dhubbard@dino.hostasaurus.com> Date: Thursday, March 28, 2019 at 12:40 PM To: NANOG List <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Did IPv6 between HE and Google ever get resolved? Hey all, I’ve been having bad luck searching around, but did IPv6 transit between HE and google ever get resolved? Ironically, I can now get to them cheaply from a location we currently have equipment that has been Cogent-only, so if it fixes the IPv6 issue I’d like to make the move. Anyone peer with HE in general and want to share their experience offlist? With the price, if they’re a good option, I’d consider rolling them in to other locations where we have redundancy already, so the v6 isn’t as big a deal there. Thanks
I think what you were remembering is Cogent/Google and Cogent/HE are both IPv6 issues where the parties can't agree on peering vs transit for the v6 relationship. On Thu, 28 Mar 2019, David Hubbard wrote:
Oops, I was corrected that HE doesn’t have IPv6 issues with Google, not sure why I had that in my head. Cogent certainly does but something had me thinking there’s another big name that has the same problem.
David
From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> on behalf of David Hubbard <dhubbard@dino.hostasaurus.com> Date: Thursday, March 28, 2019 at 12:40 PM To: NANOG List <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Did IPv6 between HE and Google ever get resolved?
Hey all, I’ve been having bad luck searching around, but did IPv6 transit between HE and google ever get resolved? Ironically, I can now get to them cheaply from a location we currently have equipment that has been Cogent-only, so if it fixes the IPv6 issue I’d like to make the move. Anyone peer with HE in general and want to share their experience offlist? With the price, if they’re a good option, I’d consider rolling them in to other locations where we have redundancy already, so the v6 isn’t as big a deal there.
Thanks
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route | therefore you are _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
Why does cogent seem like the commonality between those 2 that you mentioned :| - Aaron ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I think what you were remembering is Cogent/Google and Cogent/HE are both IPv6 issues where the parties can't agree on peering vs transit for the v6 relationship."
On Fri, 29 Mar 2019, Aaron Gould wrote:
Why does cogent seem like the commonality between those 2 that you mentioned :|
Why do people think the policy as to whether or not they can peer or have to buy transit should be different for one address family vs the other? Why will some networks peer at an IX but refuse to make changes (like new port IPs or new ASN for the same organization they already peer with)? Regardless, this is why it pays to multi-home and peer as much as possible. If you directly peer with the networks one of your transit providers is in a pissing match with, the issue is easily ignored. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route | therefore you are _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
A careful observer will note multiple fractures/rifts in the ipv6 default-free zone. It’s not as meshed as ipv4, unfortunately. Kind regards, Job
participants (4)
-
Aaron Gould -
David Hubbard -
Job Snijders -
Jon Lewis