On 10/Mar/16 17:51, Owen DeLong wrote:
I think it’s a little different from what you say…
I think Google already reaches Cogent for IPv4 via transit.
Google, long ago, announced that they would not be purchasing IPv6 transit and that they have an open peering policy for anyone who wishes to reach them. In order to avoid significant disruption, they haven’t terminated their IPv4 transit contracts, but it certainly makes sense that they would not be pursuing IPv6 transit contracts.
Understandable, but sort of moot if interconnect ports are dual-stack and there are no discrete charges for IPv4 or IPv6. Of course, if removal of IPv6 traffic saves bandwidth and operational costs for Google interconnect with Cogent, then that makes sense to do. Mark.
Just received an updated statement from cogent support: "We appreciate your concerns. This is a known issue that originates with Google as it is up to their discretion as to how they announce routes to us v4 or v6. Once again, apologies for any inconvenience." And: "The SLA does not cover route transit beyond our network. We cannot route to IPs that are not announced to us by the IP owner, directly or through a network peer."
In the end, google has made a choice. I think these kinds of choices will delay IPv6 adoption. -----Original Message----- From: Damien Burke [mailto:damien@supremebytes.com] Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 2:51 PM To: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>; Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>; Dennis Burgess <dmburgess@linktechs.net> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: RE: Cogent - Google - HE Fun Just received an updated statement from cogent support: "We appreciate your concerns. This is a known issue that originates with Google as it is up to their discretion as to how they announce routes to us v4 or v6. Once again, apologies for any inconvenience." And: "The SLA does not cover route transit beyond our network. We cannot route to IPs that are not announced to us by the IP owner, directly or through a network peer."
On 3/13/16 7:31 AM, Dennis Burgess wrote:
In the end, google has made a choice. I think these kinds of choices will delay IPv6 adoption.
Given that they publish AAAA records for a great deal of their services I'm not sure how you would conclude that.
-----Original Message----- From: Damien Burke [mailto:damien@supremebytes.com] Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 2:51 PM To: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>; Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>; Dennis Burgess <dmburgess@linktechs.net> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: RE: Cogent - Google - HE Fun
Just received an updated statement from cogent support:
"We appreciate your concerns. This is a known issue that originates with Google as it is up to their discretion as to how they announce routes to us v4 or v6.
Once again, apologies for any inconvenience."
And:
"The SLA does not cover route transit beyond our network. We cannot route to IPs that are not announced to us by the IP owner, directly or through a network peer."
I come to the opposite conclusion - that this situation can persist with apparently no business impact to either party shows that IPv6 is still unnecessary. Matthew Kaufman (Sent from my iPhone)
On Mar 13, 2016, at 7:31 AM, Dennis Burgess <dmburgess@linktechs.net> wrote:
In the end, google has made a choice. I think these kinds of choices will delay IPv6 adoption.
-----Original Message----- From: Damien Burke [mailto:damien@supremebytes.com] Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 2:51 PM To: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>; Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>; Dennis Burgess <dmburgess@linktechs.net> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: RE: Cogent - Google - HE Fun
Just received an updated statement from cogent support:
"We appreciate your concerns. This is a known issue that originates with Google as it is up to their discretion as to how they announce routes to us v4 or v6.
Once again, apologies for any inconvenience."
And:
"The SLA does not cover route transit beyond our network. We cannot route to IPs that are not announced to us by the IP owner, directly or through a network peer."
s/IPv6/Cogent/ :) No one who is serious about IPv6 is single-homed to Cogent. Arguably, no one who is serious about "The Internet" is single-homed on either protocol. Thus your conclusion seems to be more like wishful thinking. :) Doug On 03/13/2016 11:20 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
I come to the opposite conclusion - that this situation can persist with apparently no business impact to either party shows that IPv6 is still unnecessary.
Matthew Kaufman
(Sent from my iPhone)
On Mar 13, 2016, at 7:31 AM, Dennis Burgess <dmburgess@linktechs.net> wrote:
In the end, google has made a choice. I think these kinds of choices will delay IPv6 adoption.
-----Original Message----- From: Damien Burke [mailto:damien@supremebytes.com] Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 2:51 PM To: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>; Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>; Dennis Burgess <dmburgess@linktechs.net> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: RE: Cogent - Google - HE Fun
Just received an updated statement from cogent support:
"We appreciate your concerns. This is a known issue that originates with Google as it is up to their discretion as to how they announce routes to us v4 or v6.
Once again, apologies for any inconvenience."
And:
"The SLA does not cover route transit beyond our network. We cannot route to IPs that are not announced to us by the IP owner, directly or through a network peer."
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us> wrote:
No one who is serious about IPv6 is single-homed to Cogent. Arguably, no one who is serious about "The Internet" is single-homed on either protocol.
At the very least, no one who is clueful about "The Internet" is single-homed to Cogent with any protocol. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 8:32 PM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us> wrote:
No one who is serious about IPv6 is single-homed to Cogent. Arguably, no one who is serious about "The Internet" is single-homed on either protocol.
At the very least, no one who is clueful about "The Internet" is single-homed to Cogent with any protocol.
Regards, Bill Herrin
-- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
s/single-homed/dual-homed/ It's not like losing Google/HE because your other transit dropped is acceptable. JM
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 9:14 AM, James Milko <jmilko@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 8:32 PM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
At the very least, no one who is clueful about "The Internet" is single-homed to Cogent with any protocol.
s/single-homed/dual-homed/
It's not like losing Google/HE because your other transit dropped is acceptable.
Hi James, Cogent is effective at reducing cost as the third or subsequent provider in one's mix. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
One caveat about Cogent even as a third or extra provider. Because of disputes with eyeball networks, there is significant congestion at peering points with Cogent. We saw consistent 5-10% packet loss over many months traversing Cogent through to Charger, Cox and Verizon as well as others. For web access and even streaming video, with buffers, this might not be an issue. But for corporate use with VOIP and/or VPNs, it was a killer. We had to cancel our Cogent service and work with our remaining providers to de-preference Cogent completely. ---- Matthew Huff | 1 Manhattanville Rd Director of Operations | Purchase, NY 10577 OTA Management LLC | Phone: 914-460-4039 aim: matthewbhuff | Fax: 914-694-5669
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of William Herrin Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 10:47 AM To: James Milko <jmilko@gmail.com> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 9:14 AM, James Milko <jmilko@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 8:32 PM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
At the very least, no one who is clueful about "The Internet" is single-homed to Cogent with any protocol.
s/single-homed/dual-homed/
It's not like losing Google/HE because your other transit dropped is acceptable.
Hi James,
Cogent is effective at reducing cost as the third or subsequent provider in one's mix.
Regards, Bill Herrin
-- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
I would have concurred on this not so very long ago, but Cogent has made serious strides in improving this. In particular, I think Cogent is fairly trustworthy to at least AT&T and Verizon at this point. As for Charter, Comcast, Cox, and the like, I’ve come to believe that there’s really no substitute for direct interconnection to those guys if they’re part of the market you serve. My clients are mostly ISPs and ITSPs and for the over-the-top ITSPs, if they’re serving clients whose broadband access is one of the major cable providers, I always encourage the client to establish a BGP session directly into that provider (whether purchasing enterprise transit from them, but just accepting customer routes and advertising with a no-export prefix or formal paid peering, etc.) The impact that it has on service quality is measurable and it’s a significant impact in many cases.
On Mar 14, 2016, at 9:58 AM, Matthew Huff <mhuff@ox.com> wrote:
One caveat about Cogent even as a third or extra provider.
Because of disputes with eyeball networks, there is significant congestion at peering points with Cogent. We saw consistent 5-10% packet loss over many months traversing Cogent through to Charger, Cox and Verizon as well as others. For web access and even streaming video, with buffers, this might not be an issue. But for corporate use with VOIP and/or VPNs, it was a killer. We had to cancel our Cogent service and work with our remaining providers to de-preference Cogent completely.
---- Matthew Huff | 1 Manhattanville Rd Director of Operations | Purchase, NY 10577 OTA Management LLC | Phone: 914-460-4039 aim: matthewbhuff | Fax: 914-694-5669
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of William Herrin Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 10:47 AM To: James Milko <jmilko@gmail.com> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 9:14 AM, James Milko <jmilko@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 8:32 PM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
At the very least, no one who is clueful about "The Internet" is single-homed to Cogent with any protocol.
s/single-homed/dual-homed/
It's not like losing Google/HE because your other transit dropped is acceptable.
Hi James,
Cogent is effective at reducing cost as the third or subsequent provider in one's mix.
Regards, Bill Herrin
-- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
We don't serve a market. We are a private business. We are multi-homed with multiple providers, none of which is an eyeball network. Even if we wanted to peer, most of them are not available in our area, but our the only choice for some of our employees. Cogent still has congestion issues at various peering points as has been reported in this and other mailing lists recently. Like I said, if VOIP and VPN aren't an issue, go ahead and use cogent. But if packet loss makes your access useless, then avoid them if it all possible. YMMV. ---- Matthew Huff | 1 Manhattanville Rd Director of Operations | Purchase, NY 10577 OTA Management LLC | Phone: 914-460-4039 aim: matthewbhuff | Fax: 914-694-5669
-----Original Message----- From: Matthew D. Hardeman [mailto:mhardeman@ipifony.com] Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 1:41 PM To: Matthew Huff <mhuff@ox.com> Cc: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>; James Milko <jmilko@gmail.com>; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun
I would have concurred on this not so very long ago, but Cogent has made serious strides in improving this.
In particular, I think Cogent is fairly trustworthy to at least AT&T and Verizon at this point.
As for Charter, Comcast, Cox, and the like, I’ve come to believe that there’s really no substitute for direct interconnection to those guys if they’re part of the market you serve.
My clients are mostly ISPs and ITSPs and for the over-the-top ITSPs, if they’re serving clients whose broadband access is one of the major cable providers, I always encourage the client to establish a BGP session directly into that provider (whether purchasing enterprise transit from them, but just accepting customer routes and advertising with a no- export prefix or formal paid peering, etc.)
The impact that it has on service quality is measurable and it’s a significant impact in many cases.
On Mar 14, 2016, at 9:58 AM, Matthew Huff <mhuff@ox.com> wrote:
One caveat about Cogent even as a third or extra provider.
Because of disputes with eyeball networks, there is significant congestion at peering points with Cogent. We saw consistent 5-10% packet loss over many months traversing Cogent through to Charger, Cox and Verizon as well as others. For web access and even streaming video, with buffers, this might not be an issue. But for corporate use with VOIP and/or VPNs, it was a killer. We had to cancel our Cogent service and work with our remaining providers to de-preference Cogent completely.
---- Matthew Huff | 1 Manhattanville Rd Director of Operations | Purchase, NY 10577 OTA Management LLC | Phone: 914-460-4039 aim: matthewbhuff | Fax: 914-694-5669
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of William Herrin Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 10:47 AM To: James Milko <jmilko@gmail.com> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 9:14 AM, James Milko <jmilko@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 8:32 PM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
At the very least, no one who is clueful about "The Internet" is single-homed to Cogent with any protocol.
s/single-homed/dual-homed/
It's not like losing Google/HE because your other transit dropped is acceptable.
Hi James,
Cogent is effective at reducing cost as the third or subsequent provider in one's mix.
Regards, Bill Herrin
-- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
I understand. I tend to take a more market by market view of each network rather than a global perspective. Clearly, for the enterprise use case with a diversity of users spread across the globe, or even nationally, the use case is a bit different. Having said that, I am rather terribly curious... I’ve not really seen any of the major national non-eyeballs who didn’t have congestion at some peering points to major eyeball networks for not insignificant periods. Which transit have you found to be the very best for minimizing those concerns in the general case?
On Mar 14, 2016, at 1:23 PM, Matthew Huff <mhuff@ox.com> wrote:
We don't serve a market. We are a private business. We are multi-homed with multiple providers, none of which is an eyeball network. Even if we wanted to peer, most of them are not available in our area, but our the only choice for some of our employees.
Cogent still has congestion issues at various peering points as has been reported in this and other mailing lists recently. Like I said, if VOIP and VPN aren't an issue, go ahead and use cogent. But if packet loss makes your access useless, then avoid them if it all possible. YMMV.
---- Matthew Huff | 1 Manhattanville Rd Director of Operations | Purchase, NY 10577 OTA Management LLC | Phone: 914-460-4039 aim: matthewbhuff | Fax: 914-694-5669
-----Original Message----- From: Matthew D. Hardeman [mailto:mhardeman@ipifony.com] Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 1:41 PM To: Matthew Huff <mhuff@ox.com> Cc: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>; James Milko <jmilko@gmail.com>; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun
I would have concurred on this not so very long ago, but Cogent has made serious strides in improving this.
In particular, I think Cogent is fairly trustworthy to at least AT&T and Verizon at this point.
As for Charter, Comcast, Cox, and the like, I’ve come to believe that there’s really no substitute for direct interconnection to those guys if they’re part of the market you serve.
My clients are mostly ISPs and ITSPs and for the over-the-top ITSPs, if they’re serving clients whose broadband access is one of the major cable providers, I always encourage the client to establish a BGP session directly into that provider (whether purchasing enterprise transit from them, but just accepting customer routes and advertising with a no- export prefix or formal paid peering, etc.)
The impact that it has on service quality is measurable and it’s a significant impact in many cases.
On Mar 14, 2016, at 9:58 AM, Matthew Huff <mhuff@ox.com> wrote:
One caveat about Cogent even as a third or extra provider.
Because of disputes with eyeball networks, there is significant congestion at peering points with Cogent. We saw consistent 5-10% packet loss over many months traversing Cogent through to Charger, Cox and Verizon as well as others. For web access and even streaming video, with buffers, this might not be an issue. But for corporate use with VOIP and/or VPNs, it was a killer. We had to cancel our Cogent service and work with our remaining providers to de-preference Cogent completely.
---- Matthew Huff | 1 Manhattanville Rd Director of Operations | Purchase, NY 10577 OTA Management LLC | Phone: 914-460-4039 aim: matthewbhuff | Fax: 914-694-5669
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of William Herrin Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 10:47 AM To: James Milko <jmilko@gmail.com> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 9:14 AM, James Milko <jmilko@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 8:32 PM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
At the very least, no one who is clueful about "The Internet" is single-homed to Cogent with any protocol.
s/single-homed/dual-homed/
It's not like losing Google/HE because your other transit dropped is acceptable.
Hi James,
Cogent is effective at reducing cost as the third or subsequent provider in one's mix.
Regards, Bill Herrin
-- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
I wouldn't say that I know what's best. We have had many different providers over the last 20 years that I have been here. We never had an issue with any of them until we added Cogent into the mix. Currently we are using a 300MB lighttower and a 300MB LighPath metro Ethernet connection. From my experience VPN software (both IPSEC and SSLVPN) are very susceptible to high packet loss issues. A few retransmissions/out of order/dropped packets aren't a problem. A sustained drop rate of 5-10% is a major issue. ---- Matthew Huff | 1 Manhattanville Rd Director of Operations | Purchase, NY 10577 OTA Management LLC | Phone: 914-460-4039 aim: matthewbhuff | Fax: 914-694-5669
-----Original Message----- From: Matthew D. Hardeman [mailto:mhardeman@ipifony.com] Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 2:32 PM To: Matthew Huff <mhuff@ox.com> Cc: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>; James Milko <jmilko@gmail.com>; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun
I understand. I tend to take a more market by market view of each network rather than a global perspective. Clearly, for the enterprise use case with a diversity of users spread across the globe, or even nationally, the use case is a bit different.
Having said that, I am rather terribly curious... I’ve not really seen any of the major national non-eyeballs who didn’t have congestion at some peering points to major eyeball networks for not insignificant periods.
Which transit have you found to be the very best for minimizing those concerns in the general case?
On Mar 14, 2016, at 1:23 PM, Matthew Huff <mhuff@ox.com> wrote:
We don't serve a market. We are a private business. We are multi-homed with multiple providers, none of which is an eyeball network. Even if we wanted to peer, most of them are not available in our area, but our the only choice for some of our employees.
Cogent still has congestion issues at various peering points as has been reported in this and other mailing lists recently. Like I said, if VOIP and VPN aren't an issue, go ahead and use cogent. But if packet loss makes your access useless, then avoid them if it all possible. YMMV.
---- Matthew Huff | 1 Manhattanville Rd Director of Operations | Purchase, NY 10577 OTA Management LLC | Phone: 914-460-4039 aim: matthewbhuff | Fax: 914-694-5669
-----Original Message----- From: Matthew D. Hardeman [mailto:mhardeman@ipifony.com] Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 1:41 PM To: Matthew Huff <mhuff@ox.com> Cc: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>; James Milko <jmilko@gmail.com>; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun
I would have concurred on this not so very long ago, but Cogent has made serious strides in improving this.
In particular, I think Cogent is fairly trustworthy to at least AT&T and Verizon at this point.
As for Charter, Comcast, Cox, and the like, I’ve come to believe that there’s really no substitute for direct interconnection to those guys if they’re part of the market you serve.
My clients are mostly ISPs and ITSPs and for the over-the-top ITSPs, if they’re serving clients whose broadband access is one of the major cable providers, I always encourage the client to establish a BGP session directly into that provider (whether purchasing enterprise transit from them, but just accepting customer routes and advertising with a no- export prefix or formal paid peering, etc.)
The impact that it has on service quality is measurable and it’s a significant impact in many cases.
On Mar 14, 2016, at 9:58 AM, Matthew Huff <mhuff@ox.com> wrote:
One caveat about Cogent even as a third or extra provider.
Because of disputes with eyeball networks, there is significant congestion at peering points with Cogent. We saw consistent 5-10% packet loss over many months traversing Cogent through to Charger, Cox and Verizon as well as others. For web access and even streaming video, with buffers, this might not be an issue. But for corporate use with VOIP and/or VPNs, it was a killer. We had to cancel our Cogent service and work with our remaining providers to de-preference Cogent completely.
---- Matthew Huff | 1 Manhattanville Rd Director of Operations | Purchase, NY 10577 OTA Management LLC | Phone: 914-460-4039 aim: matthewbhuff | Fax: 914-694-5669
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of William Herrin Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 10:47 AM To: James Milko <jmilko@gmail.com> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 9:14 AM, James Milko <jmilko@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 8:32 PM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote: > At the very least, no one who is clueful about "The Internet" is > single-homed to Cogent with any protocol.
s/single-homed/dual-homed/
It's not like losing Google/HE because your other transit dropped is acceptable.
Hi James,
Cogent is effective at reducing cost as the third or subsequent provider in one's mix.
Regards, Bill Herrin
-- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
On 13 March 2016 at 19:20, Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at> wrote:
I come to the opposite conclusion - that this situation can persist with apparently no business impact to either party shows that IPv6 is still unnecessary.
It does in fact have business impact on Cogent (but not Google). It means that some Cogent customers, like us, that are multihomed no longer will take in any Google IPv6 traffic via Cogent. This means we will be upgrading other transits before we upgrade Cogent. Cogent will simply have less bytes to sell to us. This effect will be most profound in markets with eyeball networks that implement IPv6. On the other hand, Cogent might not know what they are missing out on. Our traffic growth will mask the fact that they lost some revenue here. It might also be that we did already get the Google traffic on a different circuit and therefore nothing changed. But Cogent has many customers, so there has to be some that just moved their IPv6 google traffic to other transits as result of this. Regards, Baldur
It looks like Google is experimenting with a change in course on this issue. Here’s a look at the IPv6 routing table tonight on my router bordering Cogent. *>i 2607:f8b0:4013::/48 2620:121:a000:f0::2(fe80::618:d6ff:fef1:c540) 0 150 0 15169 i * 2001:550:2:22::1d:1(fe80::12f3:11ff:fe29:2c24) 0 90 0 174 6461 15169 i *>i 2607:f8b0:4014::/48 2620:121:a000:f0::2(fe80::618:d6ff:fef1:c540) 0 110 0 6939 6461 15169 i * 2001:550:2:22::1d:1(fe80::12f3:11ff:fe29:2c24) 0 90 0 174 6461 15169 i *>i 2607:f8b0:4016::/48 2620:121:a000:f0::2(fe80::618:d6ff:fef1:c540) 0 150 0 15169 i * 2001:550:2:22::1d:1(fe80::12f3:11ff:fe29:2c24) 0 90 0 174 6461 15169 i This is only 3 IPv6 prefixes (out of 47 prefixes seen in my IPv6 routing table). Two of these prefixes I see via direct peering with Google and, alternatively, via Cogent through Zayo transit. One of these prefixes doesn’t advertise in Google’s direct peering session (at least not in mine, but HE picks it up via Zayo and Cogent picks it up via Zayo). All of these are /48 subnets of their greater 2620:f8b0::/32 prefix, which does show up in both their direct session and in HE via Zayo.
On Mar 13, 2016, at 9:31 AM, Dennis Burgess <dmburgess@linktechs.net> wrote:
In the end, google has made a choice. I think these kinds of choices will delay IPv6 adoption.
-----Original Message----- From: Damien Burke [mailto:damien@supremebytes.com] Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 2:51 PM To: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>; Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>; Dennis Burgess <dmburgess@linktechs.net> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: RE: Cogent - Google - HE Fun
Just received an updated statement from cogent support:
"We appreciate your concerns. This is a known issue that originates with Google as it is up to their discretion as to how they announce routes to us v4 or v6.
Once again, apologies for any inconvenience."
And:
"The SLA does not cover route transit beyond our network. We cannot route to IPs that are not announced to us by the IP owner, directly or through a network peer."
On Mar 11, 2016, at 11:50 , Damien Burke <damien@supremebytes.com> wrote:
Just received an updated statement from cogent support:
"We appreciate your concerns. This is a known issue that originates with Google as it is up to their discretion as to how they announce routes to us v4 or v6.
Once again, apologies for any inconvenience."
And:
"The SLA does not cover route transit beyond our network. We cannot route to IPs that are not announced to us by the IP owner, directly or through a network peer."
Which is a cute way of leaving out “However, since we refuse to accept them directly peering with us…” Owen
participants (12)
-
Baldur Norddahl -
Damien Burke -
Dennis Burgess -
Doug Barton -
James Milko -
joel jaeggli -
Mark Tinka -
Matthew D. Hardeman -
Matthew Huff -
Matthew Kaufman -
Owen DeLong -
William Herrin