google ipv6 routes via cogent
Hi, I'm new to the nanog list, hope this isn't out of scope for what is usually discussed here. Cogent is telling me that I can't route through cogent to get to google ipv6 routes (particularly the well known dns addresses 2001:4860:4860::88xx) because google decided not to advertise those route to one of their mutual peers. Anyone know anything about this ? .and why it happened and when it will be resolved ? -Aaron
http://bfy.tw/AOcZ There's even a NANOG thread or two in there. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Aaron" <aaron1@gvtc.com> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2017 9:49:56 AM Subject: google ipv6 routes via cogent Hi, I'm new to the nanog list, hope this isn't out of scope for what is usually discussed here. Cogent is telling me that I can't route through cogent to get to google ipv6 routes (particularly the well known dns addresses 2001:4860:4860::88xx) because google decided not to advertise those route to one of their mutual peers. Anyone know anything about this ? .and why it happened and when it will be resolved ? -Aaron
Thanks everyone, and my apologies. After I sent that email to you all, I did google for it and found that this has been a problem since ~ February 2016. Dang, that long?! In that case, I'm shutting down my ipv6 neighboring with cogent. I have 2 other inet v6 connections. I only learn 0/0 from all 3 isp's and I am not controlling which packets outbound where. I may change that and learn their prefixes and their peers, and then re-enable my cogent ipv6 bgp session then, but until then, I'm leaving it down. Thanks again y'all. RP/0/RSP0/CPU0:9k#sh bgp vrf one ipv6 unicast summary .... Process RcvTblVer bRIB/RIB LabelVer ImportVer SendTblVer StandbyVer Speaker 140 140 140 140 140 140 Neighbor Spk AS MsgRcvd MsgSent TblVer InQ OutQ Up/Down St/PfxRcd abcd:1234:efab:1212:1:1 0 174 55615 55615 0 0 0 17:35:34 Idle (Admin) -Aaron
Shouldn't that be 2000::/3 ? Den 2. mar. 2017 17.06 skrev "Aaron Gould" <aaron1@gvtc.com>: Correction... ::/0 is what I learn from those 3 :)
Well, I asked my (3) upstream providers to only send me a ipv6 default route and they sent me ::/0...here's one of them... RP/0/RSP0/CPU0: 9k#sh bgp vrf one ipv6 uni neighbors abcd:1234::1 routes Thu Mar 2 12:33:23.644 CST ... Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best i - internal, r RIB-failure, S stale Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path Route Distinguisher: 10.101.0.2:1 (default for vrf one) *> ::/0 abcd:1234::1 0 1234 i Processed 1 prefixes, 1 paths -Aaron
Or at least ask for a full view from Cogent - then you won't get any routes they don't have On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Alarig Le Lay <alarig@swordarmor.fr> wrote:
On jeu. 2 mars 12:36:04 2017, Aaron Gould wrote:
Well, I asked my (3) upstream providers to only send me a ipv6 default route and they sent me ::/0...here's one of them...
Why did you don’t ask for a full view? With that, you can easily deal with that kind of problem.
-- alarig
From what I can tell (as OP indicated) most are using ::/0. (I should
Interesting question whether 2000::/3 or ::/0 is the better default route. probably add for those who have not been running V6 for long that for the forseeble future 2000::/3 is the extent of the V6 allocation, the rest being held back for future use. Which is why that could be a default.) Is there any case where 2000::/3 would hurt one? One person mentioned something like 64:ff9b::/96, which per http://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-special-registry/iana-ipv6-special..., is the v4 to v6 translator net. Does anyone actually use that? best, dennis Dennis Bohn Manager of Network and Systems (ret) Adelphi University bohn@adelphi.edu On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> wrote:
Shouldn't that be 2000::/3 ?
Den 2. mar. 2017 17.06 skrev "Aaron Gould" <aaron1@gvtc.com>:
Correction... ::/0 is what I learn from those 3 :)
My own experience was that I tried to use the 2000::/3 route initially and that was fine with static routes in my lab, but once dynamic routing protocols were introduced, ::/0 was the only thing recognized as "default" to propagate or not with default-route statements in BGP and OSPF. That may vary from platform to platform, however the ones I played with all exhibited this behaviour. Theodore Baschak - AS395089 - Hextet Systems https://ciscodude.net/ - https://hextet.systems/ http://mbix.ca/ On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 8:01 PM, Dennis Bohn <bohn@adelphi.edu> wrote:
Interesting question whether 2000::/3 or ::/0 is the better default route. From what I can tell (as OP indicated) most are using ::/0. (I should probably add for those who have not been running V6 for long that for the forseeble future 2000::/3 is the extent of the V6 allocation, the rest being held back for future use. Which is why that could be a default.) Is there any case where 2000::/3 would hurt one? One person mentioned something like 64:ff9b::/96, which per http://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-special- registry/iana-ipv6-special-registry.xhtml, is the v4 to v6 translator net. Does anyone actually use that? best, dennis
Dennis Bohn Manager of Network and Systems (ret) Adelphi University bohn@adelphi.edu
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Baldur Norddahl < baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> wrote:
Shouldn't that be 2000::/3 ?
Den 2. mar. 2017 17.06 skrev "Aaron Gould" <aaron1@gvtc.com>:
Correction... ::/0 is what I learn from those 3 :)
Cogent refuses to settlement-free peer on IPv6 to Google and Hurricane Electric. The problem *in my mind* rests with Cogent trying to extract $$$ from said parties. Regards, Marty Strong -------------------------------------- Cloudflare - AS13335 Network Engineer marty@cloudflare.com +44 7584 906 055 smartflare (Skype) https://www.peeringdb.com/asn/13335
On 25 Feb 2017, at 15:49, Aaron <aaron1@gvtc.com> wrote:
Hi, I'm new to the nanog list, hope this isn't out of scope for what is usually discussed here.
Cogent is telling me that I can't route through cogent to get to google ipv6 routes (particularly the well known dns addresses 2001:4860:4860::88xx) because google decided not to advertise those route to one of their mutual peers.
Anyone know anything about this ? .and why it happened and when it will be resolved ?
-Aaron
On Sat, 25 Feb 2017, Aaron wrote:
Hi, I'm new to the nanog list, hope this isn't out of scope for what is usually discussed here.
Cogent is telling me that I can't route through cogent to get to google ipv6 routes (particularly the well known dns addresses 2001:4860:4860::88xx) because google decided not to advertise those route to one of their mutual peers.
Anyone know anything about this ? .and why it happened and when it will be resolved ?
Google wants Cogent to peer with them. Cogent wants Google to buy transit or use another transit provider to reach Cogent. Check the archives for the dead horse. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route | therefore you are _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
Due to various peering disputes (notably with Hurricane Electric) Cogent just don't have all the routes in IPv6 (and should be regarded as a partial IPv6 transit only). One should not rely only on Cogent for its transit, anyway :) Don't count on any improvement soon. It was already discussed here one year ago...
On 25 feb. 2017 at 16:49, Aaron <aaron1@gvtc.com> wrote :
Cogent is telling me that I can't route through cogent to get to google ipv6 routes (particularly the well known dns addresses 2001:4860:4860::88xx) because google decided not to advertise those route to one of their mutual peers.
Anyone know anything about this ? .and why it happened and when it will be resolved ?
Just Google for it.. this is probably one of the oldest running Klan dispute in the industry.. http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2009/10/22/peering-disputes-migr... Regards. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: Support@Snappytelecom.net ----- Original Message -----
From: "Aaron" <aaron1@gvtc.com> To: "nanog list" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2017 10:49:56 AM Subject: google ipv6 routes via cogent
Hi, I'm new to the nanog list, hope this isn't out of scope for what is usually discussed here.
Cogent is telling me that I can't route through cogent to get to google ipv6 routes (particularly the well known dns addresses 2001:4860:4860::88xx) because google decided not to advertise those route to one of their mutual peers.
Anyone know anything about this ? .and why it happened and when it will be resolved ?
-Aaron
On sam. 25 févr. 09:49:56 2017, Aaron wrote:
Hi, I'm new to the nanog list, hope this isn't out of scope for what is usually discussed here.
Cogent is telling me that I can't route through cogent to get to google ipv6 routes (particularly the well known dns addresses 2001:4860:4860::88xx) because google decided not to advertise those route to one of their mutual peers.
Anyone know anything about this ? .and why it happened and when it will be resolved ?
-Aaron
Hi, Cogent is not able to receive traffic from Google since February 2016, the case is the same with HE since 2010. So, as a quick workaround, you have to connect your network to another IPv6 transit operator for these destinations. I you don’t have this possibility, you can set up an IPv6-in-IPv4 tunnel to HE; the IPv4 traffic flows normally. -- alarig
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Alarig Le Lay <alarig@swordarmor.fr> wrote:
On sam. 25 févr. 09:49:56 2017, Aaron wrote:Hi,
Cogent is not able to receive traffic from Google since February 2016, the case is the same with HE since 2010.
I think maybe that wording isn't quite correct: "is not able to receive traffic from ...' isn't really what's going on is it? I mean, it's not like the interfaces aren't able to push packets, is it?
On sam. 25 févr. 09:49:56 2017, Aaron wrote:
Hi, I'm new to the nanog list, hope this isn't out of scope for what is usually discussed here.
Cogent is telling me that I can't route through cogent to get to google ipv6 routes (particularly the well known dns addresses 2001:4860:4860::88xx) because google decided not to advertise those route to one of their mutual peers.
Anyone know anything about this ? .and why it happened and when it will be resolved ?
-Aaron
Hi, Since this morning, I see again google routes from cogent: https://paste.swordarmor.fr/raw/wnFQ But, with very bad latency. To go from Rennes (France) to Frankfurt (Germany), it transits via Sydney, and still thought other ASes: https://paste.swordarmor.fr/raw/PlSM -- alarig
I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s unwanted, where Telstra domestic is announcing to Telstra International, who in turn announces to Cogent. Regards, Marty Strong -------------------------------------- Cloudflare - AS13335 Network Engineer marty@cloudflare.com +44 7584 906 055 smartflare (Skype) https://www.peeringdb.com/asn/13335
On 8 Mar 2017, at 07:18, Alarig Le Lay <alarig@swordarmor.fr> wrote:
On sam. 25 févr. 09:49:56 2017, Aaron wrote:
Hi, I'm new to the nanog list, hope this isn't out of scope for what is usually discussed here.
Cogent is telling me that I can't route through cogent to get to google ipv6 routes (particularly the well known dns addresses 2001:4860:4860::88xx) because google decided not to advertise those route to one of their mutual peers.
Anyone know anything about this ? .and why it happened and when it will be resolved ?
-Aaron
Hi,
Since this morning, I see again google routes from cogent: https://paste.swordarmor.fr/raw/wnFQ
But, with very bad latency. To go from Rennes (France) to Frankfurt (Germany), it transits via Sydney, and still thought other ASes: https://paste.swordarmor.fr/raw/PlSM
-- alarig
On mer. 8 mars 09:29:11 2017, Marty Strong via NANOG wrote:
I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s unwanted, where Telstra domestic is announcing to Telstra International, who in turn announces to Cogent.
I wouldn’t too, especially since I don’t see it anymore: alarig@nominoe:~ % birdc6 show route for 2a00:1450:4001:811::2003 BIRD 1.5.0 ready. 2a00:1450:4001::/48 via 2a06:e040:3501:101:2::1 on em0.21 [bgp_quantic 13:09:29] * (100) [AS15169i] via 2a00:5881:8100:ff00::142 on gre0 [bgp_arn_hwhost1 2017-01-30] (50) [AS15169i] via 2a00:5884:ff::13 on gre1 [bgp_arn_hwhost2 2017-01-30] (50) [AS15169i] And quantic now reaches them via HE. -- alarig
participants (13)
-
Aaron -
Aaron Gould
-
Alarig Le Lay -
Baldur Norddahl -
Christopher Morrow -
Dennis Bohn -
Faisal Imtiaz -
Jeff Waddell -
Jon Lewis -
Marty Strong -
Mike Hammett -
Olivier Benghozi -
Theodore Baschak