In other words, GOOG is playing peering chicken with Cogent for IPv6. I'm not surprised. I suggested it during talks with GOOG roughly 10 years ago...not saying I had any influence...I'm pretty sure I did not. :) GOOG wants Cogent to peer. Cogent wants GOOG to pay for transit (from them or someone else to get to Cogent). If you're well peered / multihomed, it's not much of an issue. If you're a single-homed Cogent customer, you should complain to Cogent that they're not providing full IPv6 connectivity. On Wed, 9 Mar 2016, Jürgen Jaritsch wrote:

Hi,

mail from Cogent:

...

...

...

...

Dear Cogent Customer,

Thank you for contacting Cogent Customer Support for information about the Google IPv6 addresses you are unable to reach.

Google uses transit providers to announce their IPv4 routes to Cogent.

At this time however, Google has chosen not to announce their IPv6 routes to Cogent through transit providers.

We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause you and will notify you if there is an update to the situation. <<<<

Mail from Google:

...

...

...

...

Unfortunately it seems that your transit provider does not have IPv6 connectivity with Google. We suggest you ask your transit provider to look for alternatives to interconnect with us.

Google maintains an open interconnect policy for IPv6 and welcomes any network to peer with us for access via IPv6 (and IPv4). For those networks that aren't able, or chose not to peer with Google via IPv6, they are able to reach us through any of a large number of transit providers.

For more information in how to peer directly with Google please visit https://peering.google.com <<<<

best regards

Jürgen Jaritsch Head of Network & Infrastructure

ANEXIA Internetdienstleistungs GmbH

Telefon: +43-5-0556-300 Telefax: +43-5-0556-500

E-Mail: JJaritsch@anexia-it.com Web: http://www.anexia-it.com

Anschrift Hauptsitz Klagenfurt: Feldkirchnerstraße 140, 9020 Klagenfurt Geschäftsführer: Alexander Windbichler Firmenbuch: FN 289918a | Gerichtsstand: Klagenfurt | UID-Nummer: AT U63216601

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+jjaritsch=anexia-it.com@nanog.org] Im Auftrag von Dennis Burgess Gesendet: Mittwoch, 09. März 2016 17:01 An: North American Network Operators' Group Betreff: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

I just noticed that I am NOT getting IPV6 Google prefixes though Cogent at all. I was told google pulled all of their peering with Cogent? If I bring up a SIT tunnel with HE, I get the prefixes but at horrible speed and latency .. anyone else?

[DennisBurgessSignature] www.linktechs.net<http://www.linktechs.net/> - 314-735-0270 x103 - dmburgess@linktechs.net<mailto:dmburgess@linktechs.net>

---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route | therefore you are _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________

My guess is that GOOG is playing peering chicken with Cogent on "the IPv6 Internet" because doing so is low impact. Doing this with v4 routing would be far more painful to both GOOG and single-homed Cogent customers (probably make the news and make one or both look bad). Doing this with v6 keeps it off in the shadows...both parties know its an issue, but its likely not seriously impacting anyone yet. GOOG likely thinks they're big enough and their content desirable enough, that Cogent should peer with them. Cogent clearly disagrees. I'm sure GOOG would prefer SFI with Cogent for v4 and v6...but they're working on getting v6 first. On Thu, 10 Mar 2016, Dennis Burgess wrote:

Not wishing to get into a pissing war with who is right or wrong, but it sounds like google already pays or has an agreement with cogent for v4, as that's unaffected, cogent says google is simply not advertising v6 prefixes to them, so, how is that cogent's fault?

-----Original Message----- From: Jon Lewis [mailto:jlewis@lewis.org] Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2016 11:26 AM To: Jürgen Jaritsch <JJaritsch@anexia-it.com> Cc: Dennis Burgess <dmburgess@linktechs.net>; North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: AW: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

In other words, GOOG is playing peering chicken with Cogent for IPv6. I'm not surprised. I suggested it during talks with GOOG roughly 10 years ago...not saying I had any influence...I'm pretty sure I did not. :)

GOOG wants Cogent to peer. Cogent wants GOOG to pay for transit (from them or someone else to get to Cogent). If you're well peered / multihomed, it's not much of an issue. If you're a single-homed Cogent customer, you should complain to Cogent that they're not providing full IPv6 connectivity.

On Wed, 9 Mar 2016, Jürgen Jaritsch wrote:

...

Hi,

mail from Cogent:

...

...

...

...

Dear Cogent Customer,

Thank you for contacting Cogent Customer Support for information about the Google IPv6 addresses you are unable to reach.

Google uses transit providers to announce their IPv4 routes to Cogent.

At this time however, Google has chosen not to announce their IPv6 routes to Cogent through transit providers.

We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause you and will notify you if there is an update to the situation. <<<<

Mail from Google:

...

...

...

...

Unfortunately it seems that your transit provider does not have IPv6 connectivity with Google. We suggest you ask your transit provider to look for alternatives to interconnect with us.

Google maintains an open interconnect policy for IPv6 and welcomes any network to peer with us for access via IPv6 (and IPv4). For those networks that aren't able, or chose not to peer with Google via IPv6, they are able to reach us through any of a large number of transit providers.

For more information in how to peer directly with Google please visit https://peering.google.com <<<<

best regards

Jürgen Jaritsch Head of Network & Infrastructure

ANEXIA Internetdienstleistungs GmbH

Telefon: +43-5-0556-300 Telefax: +43-5-0556-500

E-Mail: JJaritsch@anexia-it.com Web: http://www.anexia-it.com

Anschrift Hauptsitz Klagenfurt: Feldkirchnerstraße 140, 9020 Klagenfurt Geschäftsführer: Alexander Windbichler Firmenbuch: FN 289918a | Gerichtsstand: Klagenfurt | UID-Nummer: AT U63216601

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+jjaritsch=anexia-it.com@nanog.org] Im Auftrag von Dennis Burgess Gesendet: Mittwoch, 09. März 2016 17:01 An: North American Network Operators' Group Betreff: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

I just noticed that I am NOT getting IPV6 Google prefixes though Cogent at all. I was told google pulled all of their peering with Cogent? If I bring up a SIT tunnel with HE, I get the prefixes but at horrible speed and latency .. anyone else?

[DennisBurgessSignature] www.linktechs.net<http://www.linktechs.net/> - 314-735-0270 x103 - dmburgess@linktechs.net<mailto:dmburgess@linktechs.net>

---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route | therefore you are _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________

---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route | therefore you are _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________

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. The situation with Hurricane Electric is somewhat similar. Google and HE are two of the most significant IPv6 networks out there. In the IPv6 world, Cogent is basically an also-ran so far. The peering dynamics are different in IPv4 and IPv6 because the adoption rates and deployments in various networks have been different. Cogent is sticking their head in the sand and pretending that their IPv4 peering status should carry over into IPv6 automatically. One of two things will eventually happen… Either Cogent will win this game of chicken and the IPv6 networks that are not paying to reach them by transit now will start paying to do so, or, Cogent will lose this game of chicken and become progressively less relevant in the IPv6 internet. Personally, my bet is on the latter. For historical precedent, I refer you to SPRINT (AS1239). Owen

On Mar 10, 2016, at 07:09 , Dennis Burgess <dmburgess@linktechs.net> wrote:

Not wishing to get into a pissing war with who is right or wrong, but it sounds like google already pays or has an agreement with cogent for v4, as that's unaffected, cogent says google is simply not advertising v6 prefixes to them, so, how is that cogent's fault?

-----Original Message----- From: Jon Lewis [mailto:jlewis@lewis.org] Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2016 11:26 AM To: Jürgen Jaritsch <JJaritsch@anexia-it.com> Cc: Dennis Burgess <dmburgess@linktechs.net>; North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: AW: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

In other words, GOOG is playing peering chicken with Cogent for IPv6. I'm not surprised. I suggested it during talks with GOOG roughly 10 years ago...not saying I had any influence...I'm pretty sure I did not. :)

GOOG wants Cogent to peer. Cogent wants GOOG to pay for transit (from them or someone else to get to Cogent). If you're well peered / multihomed, it's not much of an issue. If you're a single-homed Cogent customer, you should complain to Cogent that they're not providing full IPv6 connectivity.

On Wed, 9 Mar 2016, Jürgen Jaritsch wrote:

...

Hi,

mail from Cogent:

...

...

...

...

Dear Cogent Customer,

Thank you for contacting Cogent Customer Support for information about the Google IPv6 addresses you are unable to reach.

Google uses transit providers to announce their IPv4 routes to Cogent.

At this time however, Google has chosen not to announce their IPv6 routes to Cogent through transit providers.

We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause you and will notify you if there is an update to the situation. <<<<

Mail from Google:

...

...

...

...

Unfortunately it seems that your transit provider does not have IPv6 connectivity with Google. We suggest you ask your transit provider to look for alternatives to interconnect with us.

Google maintains an open interconnect policy for IPv6 and welcomes any network to peer with us for access via IPv6 (and IPv4). For those networks that aren't able, or chose not to peer with Google via IPv6, they are able to reach us through any of a large number of transit providers.

For more information in how to peer directly with Google please visit https://peering.google.com <<<<

best regards

Jürgen Jaritsch Head of Network & Infrastructure

ANEXIA Internetdienstleistungs GmbH

Telefon: +43-5-0556-300 Telefax: +43-5-0556-500

E-Mail: JJaritsch@anexia-it.com Web: http://www.anexia-it.com

Anschrift Hauptsitz Klagenfurt: Feldkirchnerstraße 140, 9020 Klagenfurt Geschäftsführer: Alexander Windbichler Firmenbuch: FN 289918a | Gerichtsstand: Klagenfurt | UID-Nummer: AT U63216601

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+jjaritsch=anexia-it.com@nanog.org] Im Auftrag von Dennis Burgess Gesendet: Mittwoch, 09. März 2016 17:01 An: North American Network Operators' Group Betreff: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

I just noticed that I am NOT getting IPV6 Google prefixes though Cogent at all. I was told google pulled all of their peering with Cogent? If I bring up a SIT tunnel with HE, I get the prefixes but at horrible speed and latency .. anyone else?

[DennisBurgessSignature] www.linktechs.net<http://www.linktechs.net/> - 314-735-0270 x103 - dmburgess@linktechs.net<mailto:dmburgess@linktechs.net>

---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route | therefore you are _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________

On Mar 10, 2016, at 07:55 , William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Dennis Burgess <dmburgess@linktechs.net> wrote:

...

Not wishing to get into a pissing war with who is right or wrong, but it sounds like google already pays or has an agreement with cogent for v4, as that's unaffected, cogent says google is simply not advertising v6 prefixes to them, so, how is that cogent's fault?

Hi Dennis,

It's Cogent's fault because: double-billing. Google should not have to pay Cogent for a service which you have already paid Cogent to provide to you. Cogent's demand is unethical. They intentionally fail to deliver on the basic service expectation you pay them for and refuse to do so unless a third party to your contract also pays them.

Google, by contrast, makes no demand that Cogent pay them even though you are not paying Google for service. They offer "open peering," a free interconnect via many neutral data centers.

In fairness, however, this is because he is not Google’s customer, he is Google’s product. Google is selling him (well, information about him anyway) to their customers. They gather this information by offering certain things he wants in exchange for him allowing them to collect and redistribute this data. Everything you say above is true, but let’s be clear where the customer vs. product relationships truly are. Owen

On Mar 10, 2016, at 08:24 , Chris Adams <cma@cmadams.net> wrote:

Once upon a time, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> said:

...

In fairness, however, this is because he is not Google’s customer, he is Google’s product. Google is selling him (well, information about him anyway) to their customers. They gather this information by offering certain things he wants in exchange for him allowing them to collect and redistribute this data.

False supposition; Google does actually sell services as well. $DAYJOB pays Google for services, and has paid Cogent for network access.

Not my assumption… Assumption included from Bill Herrin’s message…

Google, by contrast, makes no demand that Cogent pay them even though you are not paying Google for service.

(Underline added for emphasis) Owen

On Mar 10, 2016, at 09:29 , William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:

...

...

On Mar 10, 2016, at 08:24 , Chris Adams <cma@cmadams.net> wrote: Once upon a time, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> said:

...

In fairness, however, this is because he is not Google’s customer, he is Google’s product.

False supposition; Google does actually sell services as well. $DAYJOB pays Google for services, and has paid Cogent for network access.

Not my assumption… Assumption included from Bill Herrin’s message…

...

Google, by contrast, makes no demand that Cogent pay them even though you are not paying Google for service.

Guys, that would be an important distinction if Cogent were providing Dennis with free service. They're not. Regardless of what Google does or doesn't do, Dennis pays Cogent to connect him to the wide Internet which emphatically includes Google. I'm sorry I said anything at all about Dennis' relationship with Google because that is immaterial to whether Cogent is honorably fulfilling its contract with Dennis.

Which doesn’t disagree with anything I said. Owen

Anyone that complains about double billing doesn't apparently know how the Internet works and should relegate themselves to writing articles for GigaOm. Oh.... ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Herrin" <bill@herrin.us> To: "Dennis Burgess" <dmburgess@linktechs.net> Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 9:55:30 AM Subject: Re: AW: Cogent - Google - HE Fun On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Dennis Burgess <dmburgess@linktechs.net> wrote:

Not wishing to get into a pissing war with who is right or wrong, but it sounds like google already pays or has an agreement with cogent for v4, as that's unaffected, cogent says google is simply not advertising v6 prefixes to them, so, how is that cogent's fault?

Hi Dennis, It's Cogent's fault because: double-billing. Google should not have to pay Cogent for a service which you have already paid Cogent to provide to you. Cogent's demand is unethical. They intentionally fail to deliver on the basic service expectation you pay them for and refuse to do so unless a third party to your contract also pays them. Google, by contrast, makes no demand that Cogent pay them even though you are not paying Google for service. They offer "open peering," a free interconnect via many neutral data centers. If you're not single-homed to Cogent and you have the balls for it, I would file an outage with Cogent and demand service credit until they resolve their IPv6 access problem with Google. And then refuse to pay until they connect with Google. If you are single-homed to Cogent, it's *very* important that you do something about that before you get burned in a way that matters. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>

Anyone who is multihomed with cogent ipv6 in their mix should shutdown their IPv6 bgp session. Let’s see if we can make their graph freefall. [cid:image001.png@01D17AD0.248335A0] http://bgp.he.net/AS174#_asinfo -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of William Herrin Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 7:56 AM To: Dennis Burgess Cc: North American Network Operators' Group Subject: Re: AW: Cogent - Google - HE Fun On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Dennis Burgess <dmburgess@linktechs.net<mailto:dmburgess@linktechs.net>> wrote:

Not wishing to get into a pissing war with who is right or wrong, but

it sounds like google already pays or has an agreement with cogent for

v4, as that's unaffected, cogent says google is simply not advertising

v6 prefixes to them, so, how is that cogent's fault?

Hi Dennis, It's Cogent's fault because: double-billing. Google should not have to pay Cogent for a service which you have already paid Cogent to provide to you. Cogent's demand is unethical. They intentionally fail to deliver on the basic service expectation you pay them for and refuse to do so unless a third party to your contract also pays them. Google, by contrast, makes no demand that Cogent pay them even though you are not paying Google for service. They offer "open peering," a free interconnect via many neutral data centers. If you're not single-homed to Cogent and you have the balls for it, I would file an outage with Cogent and demand service credit until they resolve their IPv6 access problem with Google. And then refuse to pay until they connect with Google. If you are single-homed to Cogent, it's *very* important that you do something about that before you get burned in a way that matters. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com<mailto:herrin@dirtside.com> bill@herrin.us<mailto:bill@herrin.us> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>

I have contemplated whether such mechanisms matter to Cogent, etc. I’m inclined to think that if Google is willing to pull the routes and they still don’t blink, then certainly us smaller shops aren’t going to impact them… However… If enough prefixes disappear from the _apparent_ Cogent table as viewed by outsiders, this may ultimately impact their sales of new interconnection…. For those of us multihomed with Cogent and other transit providers on IPv6 there is a less drastic way to impact the perceived value of Cogent’s IPv6 routing table to outsiders and especially to Cogent’s peers — and one that still doesn’t negatively impact the single-home customers of Cogent: "set community 174:3000" on your IPv6 advertisement to Cogent. This will constrain the advertisement to Cogent and Cogent’s customers only. For good measure, prepend your own AS to this advertisement at least a couple of times, potentially discouraging even Cogent customers who see the route from using it if they have other transit. It will prevent the path via Cogent being selected by Cogent IPv6 peers versus your other transit providers.

On Mar 10, 2016, at 3:47 PM, Fredy Kuenzler <kuenzler@init7.net> wrote:

Am 10.03.2016 um 22:25 schrieb Damien Burke <damien@supremebytes.com>:

...

Anyone who is multihomed with cogent ipv6 in their mix should shutdown their IPv6 bgp session. Let’s see if we can make their graph freefall.

Alternative:

set community [do not announce to Cogent]

*SCNR*

Mark, I certainly agree that intentional harm of a purely malicious nature is to be discouraged. What I proposed, as an alternative to some of the more extreme mechanisms being discussed, is a mechanism whereby IPv6 _customers_ of Cogent transit services--and who also receive IPv6 transit from at least one other relationship--can modify their IPv6 advertisements to Cogent such that they utilize that transit link with Cogent for the one thing you can reliably count on it for in the IPv6 world: reaching other Cogent IPv6 customers, especially the single-homed ones. In essence, adding BGP community “174:3000” to your IPv6 advertisements to Cogent instructs Cogent that this route should only be advertised internal to Cogent and to Cogent’s customers. It should not be announced to peers. Combining that with prepends of your own AS in the IPv6 advertisements to Cogent also reduces traffic from other multi-homed Cogent IPv6 customers. In any event, if enough Cogent customers do this, it does greatly reduce the amount of traffic that Cogent gets to transit from their various IPv6 peers while still avoiding harm to innocent end-users (or for that matter, to guilty end users). The mechanism I proposed has numerous benefits: 1. It utilizes only a mechanism created by Cogent and documented for use by Cogent transit customers to achieve routing policy that benefits IPv6 customers of Cogent. 2. It causes no harm to single-homed Cogent customers. 3. It causes no direct harm to Cogent. The sole indirect harm that it might bring upon Cogent if adopted en-masse would be to significantly drop the amount of traffic crossing Cogent’s SFI peerings on IPv6, which I acknowledge may have consequences for Cogent. If it did have such consequences, it’s Cogent’s game and Cogent’s rules. They could change it any time. If it indirectly harms Cogent by lowering overall traffic volume on paid multi-homed customer transit connections, Cogent could easily remedy that by becoming an IPv6 network that one would want to exchange IPv6 transit traffic with rather than being an IPv6 network that one begrudgingly pays because one does business with others who are Cogent single-homed. I do reiterate, however, that I would strongly discourage any kind of routing tricks that leave the innocent Cogent customers out in the cold. That hurts those Cogent customers as well as you and/or your own customers and users. Please, someone, think of the end-users here. My advice to Cogent would be to remember something real simple: When Big Boss #1 at RandomCorp has no trouble reaching Google services all night every night at home and then he comes to work and his office Internet does everything but Google…. What he’ll remember is “Charter works with Google, whoever we’re using at the office doesn’t. Let’s switch.” It’s shocking to me that an ISP with a retail segment thinks you can survive if Google doesn’t work, no matter what Google did to ensure it played out that way. Frankly, Google could scream that they cut Cogent off because they didn’t like Cogent’s face and no one at retail would care. They just want their Gmail back. If Google wanted to force the issue faster, they could just stop the IPv4 transit routes to Cogent. I think they’re taking a more balanced and conservative approach though. Thanks, Matt Hardeman

On Mar 10, 2016, at 4:29 PM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:

I don't think anyone should be colluding to hurt Cogent or anyone else for that matter and this thread appears to be heading in this direction.

Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Robert Jacobs <rjacobs@pslightwave.com> wrote:

Don't like what Cogent is doing but just to bring this back to reality Matthew and others out there... What content do you think Google has or any other big content provider that is IPV6 only or gives an IPV6 only response to a query from Cogent that would not work via normal IPV4 routes and IP's.. Till we have exclusive content on IPV6 or it is a shorter,

it's not relevant (really) that 'you can still get there over v4', because if your clients have ipv6, they'll ask for both, not everything happy-eyeballs it's way to success, so timeouts/frustration/pain occur. I bet that's where the OP's original questions stem. -chris

----- Original Message -----

From: "Mark Andrews" <marka@isc.org>

I don't think anyone should be colluding to hurt Cogent or anyone else for that matter and this thread appears to be heading in this direction.

I suspect a distinction could be made in court by a competent attorney between "colluding to hurt Cogent" and "collaborating to keep Cogent's ill-chosen policies from hurting the utility of the greater Internet". The Law does not guarantee *any* business the unsullied right to conduct its business in any particular way and expect that always to work; companies much newer than buggy-whip manufacturers have long since learned that. [ I am not an attorney; if my advice breaks something, you get to keep both pieces. ] Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274

Freddy, As there is no IPv6 transit between HE and Cogent, this would have the effect of isolating ones network services from the single-homed customers of Cogent. I’m not sure that many of us could get away with that. Further, I’m not sure that it’s appropriate to punish the single-homed Cogent customers. I’ll grant, this is just what Google has done, but they’re well positioned to weather that storm and have a level of visibility and brand loyalty that will allow them to have a chance of success at it. I think the softer approach of reducing the relevancy of Cogent’s IPv6 transit service and indeed the relevancy of peering with Cogent for IPv6 is a way forward that more of us could get behind. Thanks, Matt Hardeman

On Mar 10, 2016, at 4:42 PM, Fredy Kuenzler <kuenzler@init7.net> wrote:

This would work for those which are using IPv6 transit from Cogent.

For anyone else which is using IPv6 transit from Hurricane Electric and some other suppliers such as L3 or NTT: to set the community 'do not announce to Cogent' only on every other transit but HE would help to isolate Cogent without much collateral damage. It would support Google/HE's position. And maybe help to bring back Cogent onto a cooperative track, after all.

-- Fredy Kuenzler Init7 (Switzerland) Ltd. St.-Georgen-Strasse 70 CH-8400 Winterthur Switzerland

http://www.init7.net/

...

Am 10.03.2016 um 23:19 schrieb Matthew D. Hardeman <mhardeman@ipifony.com>:

I have contemplated whether such mechanisms matter to Cogent, etc.

I’m inclined to think that if Google is willing to pull the routes and they still don’t blink, then certainly us smaller shops aren’t going to impact them…

However… If enough prefixes disappear from the _apparent_ Cogent table as viewed by outsiders, this may ultimately impact their sales of new interconnection….

For those of us multihomed with Cogent and other transit providers on IPv6 there is a less drastic way to impact the perceived value of Cogent’s IPv6 routing table to outsiders and especially to Cogent’s peers — and one that still doesn’t negatively impact the single-home customers of Cogent:

"set community 174:3000" on your IPv6 advertisement to Cogent. This will constrain the advertisement to Cogent and Cogent’s customers only. For good measure, prepend your own AS to this advertisement at least a couple of times, potentially discouraging even Cogent customers who see the route from using it if they have other transit. It will prevent the path via Cogent being selected by Cogent IPv6 peers versus your other transit providers.

...

On Mar 10, 2016, at 3:47 PM, Fredy Kuenzler <kuenzler@init7.net> wrote:

Am 10.03.2016 um 22:25 schrieb Damien Burke <damien@supremebytes.com>:

...

Anyone who is multihomed with cogent ipv6 in their mix should shutdown their IPv6 bgp session. Let’s see if we can make their graph freefall.

Alternative:

set community [do not announce to Cogent]

*SCNR*

On Thu, 10 Mar 2016, William Herrin wrote:

It's Cogent's fault because: double-billing. Google should not have to pay Cogent for a service which you have already paid Cogent to provide to you. Cogent's demand is unethical. They intentionally fail to deliver on the basic service expectation you pay them for and refuse to do so unless a third party to your contract also pays them.

That's one way of looking at it. However, which of your transits don't bill for bits exchanged with other customers of theirs...and how are they or you accounting for that traffic? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route | therefore you are _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________

On Mar 11, 2016, at 06:16 , William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 7:40 AM, Jon Lewis <jlewis@lewis.org> wrote:

...

On Thu, 10 Mar 2016, William Herrin wrote:

...

It's Cogent's fault because: double-billing. Google should not have to pay Cogent for a service which you have already paid Cogent to provide to you. Cogent's demand is unethical. They intentionally fail to deliver on the basic service expectation you pay them for and refuse to do so unless a third party to your contract also pays them.

That's one way of looking at it.

However, which of your transits don't bill for bits exchanged with other customers of theirs...and how are they or you accounting for that traffic?

Hi Jon,

As you know, there is a technology limitation in how routing works which says that for any given block of addresses you can, absent extraordinary measures, have a peering relationship or a transit relationship but not both. If both parties choose to have a transit

Not really. If you have both, then there’s no easy way to guarantee that you get paid for every piece of transit (though relatively simple localpref tactics will actually make it likely that you also get paid for many bits of peering).

relationship, that excludes a peering relationship for the relevant blocks of addresses. And that's OK when _both sides_ choose it.

Your premise is flawed.

In related news, no ethical conundrum demands defiance of the law of gravity.

True, but gravity is real. Your law of peering vs. transit above is purely artificial and fails utterly if you don’t accept that an approximation of which bits fall into which category is “close enough” for billing purposes. I’m not making any value judgments on whether accepting that idea is good or bad. I know that there are networks that act in various ways on both sides of this idea. However, equating it to “the law of gravity” is rather silly given that it is 100% mutable if we take the accounting out of the picture. No amount of monetary policy change can counteract gravity. Owen

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016, Dave Bell wrote:

I don't get this. Google are basically a hosting provider. If I set up my own website, I would expect to have to pay transit for it. If I ran a hosting business I would expect to pay transit. Why are google different?

If you had presence all across the world and were providing a sizable chunk of the world total traffic, you would probably reason differently. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se