Cogeco is not related to Cogent On Thu, Dec 20, 2018, at 0:0.36666666666 AM, David Guo via NANOG写:

It's problem from Cogentco, they do not have IPv6 peer with HE.net and Google

In other words, they’re on The Internet and you (and your transit provider) are not. On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 10:40 AM David Hubbard < dhubbard@dino.hostasaurus.com> wrote:

Google and HE don't have IPv6 connectivity with Cogent because Cogent's CEO has been in some decades long pissing match with them about free settlement free peering. That's the unfortunate reality of the situation; nothing you can do other than have another route to HE/Google IPv6 targets. We have some Cogent circuits that are effectively useless for IPv6 as our customer base has heavy traffic to/from Google cloud services, so they can't be used for a backup / DR scenario; their only real value is an optimal route to other Cogent customers. I'm slowly replacing our Cogent circuits when feasible because the reality is our customers reaching Google over IPv6 via all our upstreams is more valuable than Cogent's cost savings.

On 12/20/18, 12:37 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Brian J. Murrell" < nanog-bounces@nanog.org on behalf of brian@interlinx.bc.ca> wrote:

I've been trying to figure out why I can reach an IPv6 address at Facebook (2a03:2880:f012:3:face:b00c:0:1) through (only) one of my two Internet connections as well as via an HE IPv6 tunnel but not the other of my two ISP connections

At one point in time a traceroute was dying inside of he.net:

Host Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1. 2001:1970:5261:d600::1 0.0% 7 2.1 1.3 0.7 2.9 0.8 2. 2001:1970:4000:82::1 0.0% 7 10.0 14.0 8.3 37.9 10.6 3. 2001:1970:0:1a6::1 16.7% 7 13.2 215.5 10.8 1031. 455.9 4. he.ip6.torontointernetxchange.net 0.0% 7 12.3 12.9 11.2 15.3 1.6 5. 100ge9-2.core2.chi1.he.net 0.0% 7 23.6 23.0 21.3 27.6 2.2 6. 100ge15-2.core1.chi1.he.net 0.0% 7 21.7 22.5 21.6 24.9 1.2 7. 100ge12-1.core1.atl1.he.net 0.0% 7 34.2 35.1 34.1 36.1 0.7 8. 100ge5-1.core1.tpa1.he.net 0.0% 7 49.1 46.6 44.8 49.1 1.5 9. 100ge12-1.core1.mia1.he.net 0.0% 7 51.6 54.5 50.5 73.3 8.3 10. ???

But I think it getting that far time was an anomaly and frankly it usually dies even before exiting my ISP's (Cogeco) network like this:

Host Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1. 2001:1970:5261:d600::1 0.0% 33 0.6 0.7 0.6 1.0 0.1 2. 2001:1970:4000:82::1 0.0% 33 8.2 10.8 8.1 40.5 5.6 3. 2001:1970:0:1a7::1 15.2% 33 23.4 20.1 16.5 23.4 1.5 4. 2001:1970:0:61::1 33.3% 33 16.8 17.6 14.5 25.9 2.5 5. 2001:1978:1300::1 0.0% 33 16.0 17.5 14.2 29.6 3.1 6. 2001:1978:203::45 0.0% 33 30.7 30.7 28.4 35.1 1.7 7. ???

When I asked the kind folks at he.net for some advice about the problem (i.e. in the first traceroute above) their diagnosis was that Facebook's IPv6 router(s) likely didn't have a route back to my Cogeco IPv6 address.

Trying to talk to my ISP (again, Cogeco) has been impossible. One simply cannot reach the people who know more than how to reset your router and configure your e-mail.

I wonder how I could go any further with this to confirm the diagnosis that Facebook doesn't have a route to the Cogeco network's IPv6 address space given that I only have access to my end of the path.

Cheers, b.

Job, What other partitioning like this exists? Jack From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Job Snijders Sent: December 20, 2018 2:11 PM To: Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Facebook doesn't have a route to my ISP's (Cogeco) IPv6 space? At this moment it appears there are multiple rifts in the IPv6 default-free zone (that don’t exist in the IPv4 realm), between various organizations. Focusing on one particular partitioning may not help address the other issues. Kind regards, Job

Cogent != Cogeco Cogent - US Backbone Provider Cogeco - Canadian Cable TV & Internet provider At 01:00 PM 20/12/2018, David Hubbard wrote:

Google and HE don't have IPv6 connectivity with Cogent because Cogent's CEO has been in some decades long pissing match with them about free settlement free peering. That's the unfortunate reality of the situation; nothing you can do other than have another route to HE/Google IPv6 targets. We have some Cogent circuits that are effectively useless for IPv6 as our customer base has heavy traffic to/from Google cloud services, so they can't be used for a backup / DR scenario; their only real value is an optimal route to other Cogent customers. I'm slowly replacing our Cogent circuits when feasible because the reality is our customers reaching Google over IPv6 via all our upstreams is more valuable than Cogent's cost savings.

On 12/20/18, 12:37 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Brian J. Murrell" <nanog-bounces@nanog.org on behalf of brian@interlinx.bc.ca> wrote:

I've been trying to figure out why I can reach an IPv6 address at Facebook (2a03:2880:f012:3:face:b00c:0:1) through (only) one of my two Internet connections as well as via an HE IPv6 tunnel but not the other of my two ISP connections

At one point in time a traceroute was dying inside of he.net:

Host Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1. 2001:1970:5261:d600::1 0.0% 7 2.1 1.3 0.7 2.9 0.8 2. 2001:1970:4000:82::1 0.0% 7 10.0 14.0 8.3 37.9 10.6 3. 2001:1970:0:1a6::1 16.7% 7 13.2 215.5 10.8 1031. 455.9 4. he.ip6.torontointernetxchange.net 0.0% 7 12.3 12.9 11.2 15.3 1.6 5. 100ge9-2.core2.chi1.he.net 0.0% 7 23.6 23.0 21.3 27.6 2.2 6. 100ge15-2.core1.chi1.he.net 0.0% 7 21.7 22.5 21.6 24.9 1.2 7. 100ge12-1.core1.atl1.he.net 0.0% 7 34.2 35.1 34.1 36.1 0.7 8. 100ge5-1.core1.tpa1.he.net 0.0% 7 49.1 46.6 44.8 49.1 1.5 9. 100ge12-1.core1.mia1.he.net 0.0% 7 51.6 54.5 50.5 73.3 8.3 10. ???

But I think it getting that far time was an anomaly and frankly it usually dies even before exiting my ISP's (Cogeco) network like this:

Host Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1. 2001:1970:5261:d600::1 0.0% 33 0.6 0.7 0.6 1.0 0.1 2. 2001:1970:4000:82::1 0.0% 33 8.2 10.8 8.1 40.5 5.6 3. 2001:1970:0:1a7::1 15.2% 33 23.4 20.1 16.5 23.4 1.5 4. 2001:1970:0:61::1 33.3% 33 16.8 17.6 14.5 25.9 2.5 5. 2001:1978:1300::1 0.0% 33 16.0 17.5 14.2 29.6 3.1 6. 2001:1978:203::45 0.0% 33 30.7 30.7 28.4 35.1 1.7 7. ???

When I asked the kind folks at he.net for some advice about the problem (i.e. in the first traceroute above) their diagnosis was that Facebook's IPv6 router(s) likely didn't have a route back to my Cogeco IPv6 address.

Trying to talk to my ISP (again, Cogeco) has been impossible. One simply cannot reach the people who know more than how to reset your router and configure your e-mail.

I wonder how I could go any further with this to confirm the diagnosis that Facebook doesn't have a route to the Cogeco network's IPv6 address space given that I only have access to my end of the path.

Cheers, b.

-- Clayton Zekelman Managed Network Systems Inc. (MNSi) 3363 Tecumseh Rd. E Windsor, Ontario N8W 1H4 tel. 519-985-8410 fax. 519-985-8409

They should probably just rebrand to CoGeCo, but that does look kinda silly, so, they probably won't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogeco

Cogeco is an acronym for Compagnie Générale de Communication ("General Communications Company").

Both Cogent Communications and Cogeco are in pretty different market segments (for anyone in the know), so, they each probably don't really care about the confusion in their respective target markets. C. On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 at 13:13, David Hubbard <dhubbard@dino.hostasaurus.com> wrote:

Yikes, they should change their name rather than be mistaken for Cogent lol

On 12/20/18, 2:04 PM, "Clayton Zekelman" <clayton@MNSi.Net> wrote:

Cogent != Cogeco

Cogent - US Backbone Provider Cogeco - Canadian Cable TV & Internet provider

At 01:00 PM 20/12/2018, David Hubbard wrote: >Google and HE don't have IPv6 connectivity with >Cogent because Cogent's CEO has been in some >decades long pissing match with them about free >settlement free peering. That's the unfortunate >reality of the situation; nothing you can do >other than have another route to HE/Google IPv6 >targets. We have some Cogent circuits that are >effectively useless for IPv6 as our customer >base has heavy traffic to/from Google cloud >services, so they can't be used for a backup / >DR scenario; their only real value is an optimal >route to other Cogent customers. I'm slowly >replacing our Cogent circuits when feasible >because the reality is our customers reaching >Google over IPv6 via all our upstreams is more >valuable than Cogent's cost savings. > > > >On 12/20/18, 12:37 PM, "NANOG on behalf of >Brian J. Murrell" <nanog-bounces@nanog.org on >behalf of brian@interlinx.bc.ca> wrote: > > I've been trying to figure out why I can reach an IPv6 address at > Facebook (2a03:2880:f012:3:face:b00c:0:1) through (only) one of my two > Internet connections as well as via an HE IPv6 tunnel but not the other > of my two ISP connections > > At one point in time a traceroute was dying inside of he.net: > > Host > Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev > 1. > 2001:1970:5261:d600::1 0.0% > 7 2.1 1.3 0.7 2.9 0.8 > 2. > 2001:1970:4000:82::1 0.0% > 7 10.0 14.0 8.3 37.9 10.6 > 3. > 2001:1970:0:1a6::1 16.7% > 7 13.2 215.5 10.8 1031. 455.9 > 4. > he.ip6.torontointernetxchange.net 0.0% > 7 12.3 12.9 11.2 15.3 1.6 > 5. > 100ge9-2.core2.chi1.he.net 0.0% > 7 23.6 23.0 21.3 27.6 2.2 > 6. > 100ge15-2.core1.chi1.he.net 0.0% > 7 21.7 22.5 21.6 24.9 1.2 > 7. > 100ge12-1.core1.atl1.he.net 0.0% > 7 34.2 35.1 34.1 36.1 0.7 > 8. > 100ge5-1.core1.tpa1.he.net 0.0% > 7 49.1 46.6 44.8 49.1 1.5 > 9. > 100ge12-1.core1.mia1.he.net 0.0% > 7 51.6 54.5 50.5 73.3 8.3 > 10. ??? > > But I think it getting that far time was an anomaly and frankly it > usually dies even before exiting my ISP's (Cogeco) network like this: > > Host > Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev > 1. > 2001:1970:5261:d600::1 0.0% > 33 0.6 0.7 0.6 1.0 0.1 > 2. > 2001:1970:4000:82::1 0.0% > 33 8.2 10.8 8.1 40.5 5.6 > 3. > 2001:1970:0:1a7::1 15.2% > 33 23.4 20.1 16.5 23.4 1.5 > 4. > 2001:1970:0:61::1 33.3% > 33 16.8 17.6 14.5 25.9 2.5 > 5. > 2001:1978:1300::1 0.0% > 33 16.0 17.5 14.2 29.6 3.1 > 6. > 2001:1978:203::45 0.0% > 33 30.7 30.7 28.4 35.1 1.7 > 7. ??? > > When I asked the kind folks at he.net for some advice about the problem > (i.e. in the first traceroute above) their diagnosis was that > Facebook's IPv6 router(s) likely didn't have a route back to my Cogeco > IPv6 address. > > Trying to talk to my ISP (again, Cogeco) has been impossible. One > simply cannot reach the people who know more than how to reset your > router and configure your e-mail. > > I wonder how I could go any further with this to confirm the diagnosis > that Facebook doesn't have a route to the Cogeco network's IPv6 address > space given that I only have access to my end of the path. > > Cheers, > b. > >

--

Clayton Zekelman Managed Network Systems Inc. (MNSi) 3363 Tecumseh Rd. E Windsor, Ontario N8W 1H4

tel. 519-985-8410 fax. 519-985-8409

On Thu, 2018-12-20 at 21:44 -0500, Harald Koch wrote:

To OP: I believe that every last-mile provider in Canda is still offering IPv6 as a best-effort, unsupported service.

Yeah. I'm aware of this. But I want to give them the benefit of the doubt that this problem is simply ignorance and something they'd like to fix rather than any of the more depressing alternatives. Cheers, b.

On Thu, 2018-12-20 at 21:48 +0200, Max Tulyev wrote:

Well known problem.

Interesting. As in a general problem across the Internet or a well known problem with Cogeco specifically?

You can use our tunnel broker connection (tb.netassist.ua) as a workaround.

Thanks. But I actually already have a tunnel as well as a(nother) native IPv6 ISP (yes, I have two consumer ISP connections) which routes to Facebook properly. The problem is that for the clients behind this router receiving RAs for all three upstream connections and plumbing IPv6 addresses on each of those networks, I know of no way to prevent them from choosing their Cogeco IP address among the 3 and thus trying to use the Cogeco route. I can (and have) put a rule into that router to refuse connections to Facebook when using the Cogeco source address which sends TCP clients a TCP reset with the hope that (good at least) clients/IPv6 stacks will try a different source address but the results on that seem spotty at best. b.

On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 at 22:12, Brian J. Murrell <brian@interlinx.bc.ca> wrote:

On Thu, 2018-12-20 at 17:28 -0600, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:

...

Hi Brian,

Hi,

...

But what's exactly at 2a03:2880:f012:3:face:b00c:0:1?

It's one of the endpoints involved in Facebook's Messenger service. IIRC it's "graph.facebook.com", although I note that that address is currently answering as:

graph.facebook.com. 2068 IN CNAME api.facebook.com. api.facebook.com. 2068 IN CNAME star.c10r.facebook.com. star.c10r.facebook.com. 25 IN AAAA 2a03:2880:f00e:a:face:b00c:0:2

To be fair though, that one could just be what a load-balancing name service is responding at the moment. Notice that the two addresses are only off by one.

But even more interesting is that it's now working:

My traceroute [v0.92] pc.interlinx.bc.ca (2001:1970:5261:d600:c5d9:3319:afbc:3bb6) 2018-12-20T23:07:14-0500 Keys: Help Display mode Restart statistics Order of fields quit Packets Pings Host Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1. 2001:1970:5261:d600::1 0.0% 94 0.6 0.7 0.4 3.8 0.3 2. 2001:1970:4000:82::1 0.0% 94 9.0 20.2 7.3 889.2 91.0 3. 2001:1970:0:1a7::1 39.4% 94 19.8 19.5 17.9 26.3 1.8 4. 2001:1970:0:61::1 45.2% 93 18.1 16.5 14.3 22.5 1.9 5. ae7.pr03.yyz1.tfbnw.net 0.0% 93 19.6 19.4 14.9 76.8 9.4 6. po103.psw04.yyz1.tfbnw.net 0.0% 93 14.5 15.8 13.9 24.0 1.5 7. po4.msw1ab.01.yyz1.tfbnw.net 0.0% 93 15.3 15.7 14.2 24.0 1.3 8. 2a03:2880:f00e:a:face:b00c:0:1 0.0% 93 19.2 15.5 13.7 22.5 1.7

And even just a few minutes ago it was not as I was testing it for another (off-list) query:

My traceroute [v0.92] pc.interlinx.bc.ca (2001:1970:5261:d600:c5d9:3319:afbc:3bb6) 2018-12-20T22:47:51-0500 Keys: Help Display mode Restart statistics Order of fields quit Packets Pings Host Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1. 2001:1970:5261:d600::1 0.0% 112 0.6 0.7 0.5 5.1 0.4 2. 2001:1970:4000:82::1 0.0% 112 9.2 15.8 7.3 374.4 36.2 3. 2001:1970:0:1a7::1 17.0% 112 18.3 19.1 17.6 21.9 0.8 4. 2001:1970:0:61::1 33.0% 112 15.9 16.0 14.8 27.9 1.8 5. 2001:1978:1300::1 0.0% 112 15.5 17.0 14.1 49.8 4.4 6. 2001:1978:203::45 0.0% 112 29.5 29.8 28.2 46.8 2.1 7. ???

Perhaps the bit of cage rattling that I have done here has knocked something loose. :-)

Cheers, b.

I think TFBNW folks definitely read these lists, even if they never respond officially. Their whole network was apparently down via IPv6 for like at least a few days several years ago; they've then fixed it back in the day by simply removing the AAAA records. :-) https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/outages/2013-May/005570.html https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/outages/2013-May/005579.html It's kind of amazing that tech reporters never really pick up these stories, TBH. I guess these outages don't really sell, especially if noone but a few selected users can even detect it in the first place, even if they do last for days or even weeks/years for certain users in certain configurations. Cheers, Constantine.