Anyone know what's actually going on here? We received the following information from the two of them, and this just started a week or so ago. *From Cogent, the transit provider for a branch office of ours:* 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. *From Google (re: Cogent):* 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 -- Ian Clark Lead Network Engineer DreamHost
Not sure. I got the same thing today as well. Is this some kind of ipv6 war? -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ian Clark Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 10:25 AM To: NANOG Subject: Cogent & Google IPv6 Anyone know what's actually going on here? We received the following information from the two of them, and this just started a week or so ago. *From Cogent, the transit provider for a branch office of ours:* 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. *From Google (re: Cogent):* 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 -- Ian Clark Lead Network Engineer DreamHost
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Cogent isn't peering with Google IPv6, shouldn't the traffic flow out to one of their peer points where another peer DOES peer with Google IPv6 and get you in? Isn't that how the Internet is suppose to work? On 2/24/16 2:43 PM, Damien Burke wrote:
Not sure. I got the same thing today as well.
Is this some kind of ipv6 war?
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ian Clark Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 10:25 AM To: NANOG Subject: Cogent & Google IPv6
Anyone know what's actually going on here? We received the following information from the two of them, and this just started a week or so ago.
*From Cogent, the transit provider for a branch office of ours:*
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.
*From Google (re: Cogent):*
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
-- Ian Clark Lead Network Engineer DreamHost
If you connected to Internet ONLY through Cogent - there is no other way. If you have another upstreams - Google should be reachable. On 24.02.16 21:46, Matt Hoppes wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Cogent isn't peering with Google IPv6, shouldn't the traffic flow out to one of their peer points where another peer DOES peer with Google IPv6 and get you in?
Isn't that how the Internet is suppose to work?
On 2/24/16 2:43 PM, Damien Burke wrote:
Not sure. I got the same thing today as well.
Is this some kind of ipv6 war?
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ian Clark Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 10:25 AM To: NANOG Subject: Cogent & Google IPv6
Anyone know what's actually going on here? We received the following information from the two of them, and this just started a week or so ago.
*From Cogent, the transit provider for a branch office of ours:*
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.
*From Google (re: Cogent):*
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
-- Ian Clark Lead Network Engineer DreamHost
To answer Matt’s question, NO. Assume Cogent peers with NTT. Assume Google peers with NTT. NTT has very good v6 connectivity (not an assumption). Cogent cannot send a packet to NTT and say “please hand this to Google”. Nor can Google hand a packet to NTT with a destination of Cogent. Under this scenario, NTT is not being paid by Cogent or Google. Why would they take a packet from one and give it to the other? -- TTFN, patrick
On Feb 24, 2016, at 2:53 PM, Max Tulyev <maxtul@netassist.ua> wrote:
If you connected to Internet ONLY through Cogent - there is no other way. If you have another upstreams - Google should be reachable.
On 24.02.16 21:46, Matt Hoppes wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Cogent isn't peering with Google IPv6, shouldn't the traffic flow out to one of their peer points where another peer DOES peer with Google IPv6 and get you in?
Isn't that how the Internet is suppose to work?
On 2/24/16 2:43 PM, Damien Burke wrote:
Not sure. I got the same thing today as well.
Is this some kind of ipv6 war?
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ian Clark Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 10:25 AM To: NANOG Subject: Cogent & Google IPv6
Anyone know what's actually going on here? We received the following information from the two of them, and this just started a week or so ago.
*From Cogent, the transit provider for a branch office of ours:*
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.
*From Google (re: Cogent):*
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
-- Ian Clark Lead Network Engineer DreamHost
What’s truly amazing to me about this is that only Cogent seems to be engaging in this kind of behavior on IPv6. Furthermore, the only people Cogent is hurting with their willful ignorance of the changing peering landscape in IPv6 is THEIR OWN PAYING CUSTOMERS. Which is really bizarre when you think about it. I’m trying to understand this from Cogent’s perspective and failing. They are creating a problem that impacts only their customers while others do not create this same problem. How can they imagine this is benefiting them?
On Feb 24, 2016, at 1:53 PM, Max Tulyev <maxtul@netassist.ua> wrote:
If you connected to Internet ONLY through Cogent - there is no other way. If you have another upstreams - Google should be reachable.
On 24.02.16 21:46, Matt Hoppes wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Cogent isn't peering with Google IPv6, shouldn't the traffic flow out to one of their peer points where another peer DOES peer with Google IPv6 and get you in?
Isn't that how the Internet is suppose to work?
On 2/24/16 2:43 PM, Damien Burke wrote:
Not sure. I got the same thing today as well.
Is this some kind of ipv6 war?
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ian Clark Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 10:25 AM To: NANOG Subject: Cogent & Google IPv6
Anyone know what's actually going on here? We received the following information from the two of them, and this just started a week or so ago.
*From Cogent, the transit provider for a branch office of ours:*
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.
*From Google (re: Cogent):*
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
-- Ian Clark Lead Network Engineer DreamHost
i suspect that what is goiing on here is actually a good sign of ipv6 becoming commercially real. for the last couple of decades, ipv6 has been connected via <puke> tunnels, an unusual amount of free peering, packets carried by donkeys over the mountains, anything that worked. as ipv6 starts to become commercially real, traffic exchange agreements are becoming commercial. so the free peering etc. are going away. it sure would be nice if the tunnels and donkeys went away too. welcome to the not my mother's internet. yes, virginia, there really are tier-1 settlement-free providers. but keep whining, it moves a lot of packets; not. randy
I completely agree, the only possible explanation would be if they actually get paid by Google for IPv4 transit (either directly or indirectly), or somehow use Google's IPv4 traffic as a leverage to pad the in/out ratios (and/or overall traffic levels) such as to continue to enjoy settlement-free peering with other transit providers. C. On 25 February 2016 at 13:04, Matthew D. Hardeman <mhardeman@ipifony.com> wrote:
What’s truly amazing to me about this is that only Cogent seems to be engaging in this kind of behavior on IPv6. Furthermore, the only people Cogent is hurting with their willful ignorance of the changing peering landscape in IPv6 is THEIR OWN PAYING CUSTOMERS. Which is really bizarre when you think about it. I’m trying to understand this from Cogent’s perspective and failing. They are creating a problem that impacts only their customers while others do not create this same problem. How can they imagine this is benefiting them?
On Feb 24, 2016, at 1:53 PM, Max Tulyev <maxtul@netassist.ua> wrote:
If you connected to Internet ONLY through Cogent - there is no other way. If you have another upstreams - Google should be reachable.
On 24.02.16 21:46, Matt Hoppes wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Cogent isn't peering with Google IPv6, shouldn't the traffic flow out to one of their peer points where another peer DOES peer with Google IPv6 and get you in?
Isn't that how the Internet is suppose to work?
On 2/24/16 2:43 PM, Damien Burke wrote:
Not sure. I got the same thing today as well.
Is this some kind of ipv6 war?
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ian Clark Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 10:25 AM To: NANOG Subject: Cogent & Google IPv6
Anyone know what's actually going on here? We received the following information from the two of them, and this just started a week or so ago.
*From Cogent, the transit provider for a branch office of ours:*
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.
*From Google (re: Cogent):*
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
-- Ian Clark Lead Network Engineer DreamHost
This is Google saying that Google does not want to pay for traffic to Cogent. If Cogent wants to exchange any traffic with Google, Cogent is invited to peer directly with Google. Of course Cogent refuses. And now Cogent is not only missing the part of IPv6 internet that is Hurricane Electric single homed but also everything Google. Why does Cogent refuse? They used to deliver this traffic on free peering with another tier 1 provider. Now they are asked to deliver the same traffic for the same price (free) on a direct peering session. They won't because Cogent believes Google should pay for this traffic. That another Cogent customer already paid for the traffic does not matter. They want double dipping or nothing. So nothing it is. Seems to me that if you are serious about IPv6 you can not use Cogent as your primary or secondary transit provider. You can use them as your third if you want to. Regards, Baldur On 24 February 2016 at 20:46, Matt Hoppes <mhoppes@indigowireless.com> wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Cogent isn't peering with Google IPv6, shouldn't the traffic flow out to one of their peer points where another peer DOES peer with Google IPv6 and get you in?
Isn't that how the Internet is suppose to work?
On 2/24/16 2:43 PM, Damien Burke wrote:
Not sure. I got the same thing today as well.
Is this some kind of ipv6 war?
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ian Clark Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 10:25 AM To: NANOG Subject: Cogent & Google IPv6
Anyone know what's actually going on here? We received the following information from the two of them, and this just started a week or so ago.
*From Cogent, the transit provider for a branch office of ours:*
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.
*From Google (re: Cogent):*
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
-- Ian Clark Lead Network Engineer DreamHost
Are HE & Google the new L3 & FT? Nah, L3 would never have baked Cogent a cake. :) Shall we start a pool? Only problem is, should the pool be “who will disconnect from Cogent next?” or “when will Cogent blink?” I’m voting for the former. -- TTFN, patrick
On Feb 24, 2016, at 3:08 PM, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> wrote:
This is Google saying that Google does not want to pay for traffic to Cogent. If Cogent wants to exchange any traffic with Google, Cogent is invited to peer directly with Google. Of course Cogent refuses. And now Cogent is not only missing the part of IPv6 internet that is Hurricane Electric single homed but also everything Google.
Why does Cogent refuse? They used to deliver this traffic on free peering with another tier 1 provider. Now they are asked to deliver the same traffic for the same price (free) on a direct peering session. They won't because Cogent believes Google should pay for this traffic. That another Cogent customer already paid for the traffic does not matter. They want double dipping or nothing. So nothing it is.
Seems to me that if you are serious about IPv6 you can not use Cogent as your primary or secondary transit provider. You can use them as your third if you want to.
Regards,
Baldur
On 24 February 2016 at 20:46, Matt Hoppes <mhoppes@indigowireless.com> wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Cogent isn't peering with Google IPv6, shouldn't the traffic flow out to one of their peer points where another peer DOES peer with Google IPv6 and get you in?
Isn't that how the Internet is suppose to work?
On 2/24/16 2:43 PM, Damien Burke wrote:
Not sure. I got the same thing today as well.
Is this some kind of ipv6 war?
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ian Clark Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 10:25 AM To: NANOG Subject: Cogent & Google IPv6
Anyone know what's actually going on here? We received the following information from the two of them, and this just started a week or so ago.
*From Cogent, the transit provider for a branch office of ours:*
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.
*From Google (re: Cogent):*
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
-- Ian Clark Lead Network Engineer DreamHost
Whomever hurts the most will blink first. I don't really care who that is. I have no ill will towards "double dipping". Either they do or they don't offer the desired connectivity and I'm moving on. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net> To: "NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 2:12:07 PM Subject: Re: Cogent & Google IPv6 Are HE & Google the new L3 & FT? Nah, L3 would never have baked Cogent a cake. :) Shall we start a pool? Only problem is, should the pool be “who will disconnect from Cogent next?” or “when will Cogent blink?” I’m voting for the former. -- TTFN, patrick
On Feb 24, 2016, at 3:08 PM, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> wrote:
This is Google saying that Google does not want to pay for traffic to Cogent. If Cogent wants to exchange any traffic with Google, Cogent is invited to peer directly with Google. Of course Cogent refuses. And now Cogent is not only missing the part of IPv6 internet that is Hurricane Electric single homed but also everything Google.
Why does Cogent refuse? They used to deliver this traffic on free peering with another tier 1 provider. Now they are asked to deliver the same traffic for the same price (free) on a direct peering session. They won't because Cogent believes Google should pay for this traffic. That another Cogent customer already paid for the traffic does not matter. They want double dipping or nothing. So nothing it is.
Seems to me that if you are serious about IPv6 you can not use Cogent as your primary or secondary transit provider. You can use them as your third if you want to.
Regards,
Baldur
On 24 February 2016 at 20:46, Matt Hoppes <mhoppes@indigowireless.com> wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Cogent isn't peering with Google IPv6, shouldn't the traffic flow out to one of their peer points where another peer DOES peer with Google IPv6 and get you in?
Isn't that how the Internet is suppose to work?
On 2/24/16 2:43 PM, Damien Burke wrote:
Not sure. I got the same thing today as well.
Is this some kind of ipv6 war?
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ian Clark Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 10:25 AM To: NANOG Subject: Cogent & Google IPv6
Anyone know what's actually going on here? We received the following information from the two of them, and this just started a week or so ago.
*From Cogent, the transit provider for a branch office of ours:*
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.
*From Google (re: Cogent):*
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
-- Ian Clark Lead Network Engineer DreamHost
Agreed on all points. “Double dipping” is not morally abhorrent, or even slightly slimy. However, Cogent customers paid Cogent to connect to The Internet, not “The other networks that are paying Cogent”. So in this case, if I had to make a choice of which provider to drop, I’d stick with Google. (I do not have to make such a decision.) One could claim the same about HE vs. Cogent. However, I’m still going to give the nod to the people saying “we are happy to connect” over the people who say “pay me to connect”. Obviously a lot of details I’m glossing over, but HE does have, IMHO, a good argument for v6 peering with Cogent. Doesn’t mean either is “wrong", just that is how I would vote with my wallet if I had to make the choice. (Again, I do not.) So when FB does the same thing, when Comcast does the same thing, when Apple does the same thing, when …. When will Cogent feel enough pain to relent? Or will this simply delay the full implementation of IPv6 even more, and Cogent won’t notice because everyone falls back to v4? -- TTFN, patrick
On Feb 24, 2016, at 3:16 PM, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
Whomever hurts the most will blink first. I don't really care who that is. I have no ill will towards "double dipping". Either they do or they don't offer the desired connectivity and I'm moving on.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net> To: "NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 2:12:07 PM Subject: Re: Cogent & Google IPv6
Are HE & Google the new L3 & FT?
Nah, L3 would never have baked Cogent a cake. :)
Shall we start a pool? Only problem is, should the pool be “who will disconnect from Cogent next?” or “when will Cogent blink?” I’m voting for the former.
-- TTFN, patrick
On Feb 24, 2016, at 3:08 PM, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> wrote:
This is Google saying that Google does not want to pay for traffic to Cogent. If Cogent wants to exchange any traffic with Google, Cogent is invited to peer directly with Google. Of course Cogent refuses. And now Cogent is not only missing the part of IPv6 internet that is Hurricane Electric single homed but also everything Google.
Why does Cogent refuse? They used to deliver this traffic on free peering with another tier 1 provider. Now they are asked to deliver the same traffic for the same price (free) on a direct peering session. They won't because Cogent believes Google should pay for this traffic. That another Cogent customer already paid for the traffic does not matter. They want double dipping or nothing. So nothing it is.
Seems to me that if you are serious about IPv6 you can not use Cogent as your primary or secondary transit provider. You can use them as your third if you want to.
Regards,
Baldur
On 24 February 2016 at 20:46, Matt Hoppes <mhoppes@indigowireless.com> wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Cogent isn't peering with Google IPv6, shouldn't the traffic flow out to one of their peer points where another peer DOES peer with Google IPv6 and get you in?
Isn't that how the Internet is suppose to work?
On 2/24/16 2:43 PM, Damien Burke wrote:
Not sure. I got the same thing today as well.
Is this some kind of ipv6 war?
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ian Clark Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 10:25 AM To: NANOG Subject: Cogent & Google IPv6
Anyone know what's actually going on here? We received the following information from the two of them, and this just started a week or so ago.
*From Cogent, the transit provider for a branch office of ours:*
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.
*From Google (re: Cogent):*
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
-- Ian Clark Lead Network Engineer DreamHost
*nods* and everything is pros and cons. In one's situation, does Cogent have enough pros to overcome the cons? Same for HE or any other carrier. If I get full tables (v4 and b6) from multiple networks and\or I peer with the networks that are missing from a particular provider's offering, I may very well not give a darn about it being missing. I may never have even used it in the first place. If whatever advantages to me outweigh that loss, so be it. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net> To: "NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 2:27:21 PM Subject: Re: Cogent & Google IPv6 Agreed on all points. “Double dipping” is not morally abhorrent, or even slightly slimy. However, Cogent customers paid Cogent to connect to The Internet, not “The other networks that are paying Cogent”. So in this case, if I had to make a choice of which provider to drop, I’d stick with Google. (I do not have to make such a decision.) One could claim the same about HE vs. Cogent. However, I’m still going to give the nod to the people saying “we are happy to connect” over the people who say “pay me to connect”. Obviously a lot of details I’m glossing over, but HE does have, IMHO, a good argument for v6 peering with Cogent. Doesn’t mean either is “wrong", just that is how I would vote with my wallet if I had to make the choice. (Again, I do not.) So when FB does the same thing, when Comcast does the same thing, when Apple does the same thing, when …. When will Cogent feel enough pain to relent? Or will this simply delay the full implementation of IPv6 even more, and Cogent won’t notice because everyone falls back to v4? -- TTFN, patrick
On Feb 24, 2016, at 3:16 PM, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
Whomever hurts the most will blink first. I don't really care who that is. I have no ill will towards "double dipping". Either they do or they don't offer the desired connectivity and I'm moving on.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net> To: "NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 2:12:07 PM Subject: Re: Cogent & Google IPv6
Are HE & Google the new L3 & FT?
Nah, L3 would never have baked Cogent a cake. :)
Shall we start a pool? Only problem is, should the pool be “who will disconnect from Cogent next?” or “when will Cogent blink?” I’m voting for the former.
-- TTFN, patrick
On Feb 24, 2016, at 3:08 PM, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> wrote:
This is Google saying that Google does not want to pay for traffic to Cogent. If Cogent wants to exchange any traffic with Google, Cogent is invited to peer directly with Google. Of course Cogent refuses. And now Cogent is not only missing the part of IPv6 internet that is Hurricane Electric single homed but also everything Google.
Why does Cogent refuse? They used to deliver this traffic on free peering with another tier 1 provider. Now they are asked to deliver the same traffic for the same price (free) on a direct peering session. They won't because Cogent believes Google should pay for this traffic. That another Cogent customer already paid for the traffic does not matter. They want double dipping or nothing. So nothing it is.
Seems to me that if you are serious about IPv6 you can not use Cogent as your primary or secondary transit provider. You can use them as your third if you want to.
Regards,
Baldur
On 24 February 2016 at 20:46, Matt Hoppes <mhoppes@indigowireless.com> wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Cogent isn't peering with Google IPv6, shouldn't the traffic flow out to one of their peer points where another peer DOES peer with Google IPv6 and get you in?
Isn't that how the Internet is suppose to work?
On 2/24/16 2:43 PM, Damien Burke wrote:
Not sure. I got the same thing today as well.
Is this some kind of ipv6 war?
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ian Clark Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 10:25 AM To: NANOG Subject: Cogent & Google IPv6
Anyone know what's actually going on here? We received the following information from the two of them, and this just started a week or so ago.
*From Cogent, the transit provider for a branch office of ours:*
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.
*From Google (re: Cogent):*
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
-- Ian Clark Lead Network Engineer DreamHost
Transit providers are the mdidlemen of the internet, I see no problem with the concept of "double dipping". It's their fiber and infrastructure, if you want access to everything on their network, including other people on their network, pay for it or find a way to get access. On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
*nods* and everything is pros and cons. In one's situation, does Cogent have enough pros to overcome the cons? Same for HE or any other carrier. If I get full tables (v4 and b6) from multiple networks and\or I peer with the networks that are missing from a particular provider's offering, I may very well not give a darn about it being missing. I may never have even used it in the first place. If whatever advantages to me outweigh that loss, so be it.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net> To: "NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 2:27:21 PM Subject: Re: Cogent & Google IPv6
Agreed on all points. “Double dipping” is not morally abhorrent, or even slightly slimy. However, Cogent customers paid Cogent to connect to The Internet, not “The other networks that are paying Cogent”. So in this case, if I had to make a choice of which provider to drop, I’d stick with Google. (I do not have to make such a decision.)
One could claim the same about HE vs. Cogent. However, I’m still going to give the nod to the people saying “we are happy to connect” over the people who say “pay me to connect”. Obviously a lot of details I’m glossing over, but HE does have, IMHO, a good argument for v6 peering with Cogent. Doesn’t mean either is “wrong", just that is how I would vote with my wallet if I had to make the choice. (Again, I do not.)
So when FB does the same thing, when Comcast does the same thing, when Apple does the same thing, when …. When will Cogent feel enough pain to relent?
Or will this simply delay the full implementation of IPv6 even more, and Cogent won’t notice because everyone falls back to v4?
-- TTFN, patrick
On Feb 24, 2016, at 3:16 PM, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
Whomever hurts the most will blink first. I don't really care who that is. I have no ill will towards "double dipping". Either they do or they don't offer the desired connectivity and I'm moving on.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net> To: "NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 2:12:07 PM Subject: Re: Cogent & Google IPv6
Are HE & Google the new L3 & FT?
Nah, L3 would never have baked Cogent a cake. :)
Shall we start a pool? Only problem is, should the pool be “who will disconnect from Cogent next?” or “when will Cogent blink?” I’m voting for the former.
-- TTFN, patrick
On Feb 24, 2016, at 3:08 PM, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> wrote:
This is Google saying that Google does not want to pay for traffic to Cogent. If Cogent wants to exchange any traffic with Google, Cogent is invited to peer directly with Google. Of course Cogent refuses. And now Cogent is not only missing the part of IPv6 internet that is Hurricane Electric single homed but also everything Google.
Why does Cogent refuse? They used to deliver this traffic on free peering with another tier 1 provider. Now they are asked to deliver the same traffic for the same price (free) on a direct peering session. They won't because Cogent believes Google should pay for this traffic. That another Cogent customer already paid for the traffic does not matter. They want double dipping or nothing. So nothing it is.
Seems to me that if you are serious about IPv6 you can not use Cogent as your primary or secondary transit provider. You can use them as your third if you want to.
Regards,
Baldur
On 24 February 2016 at 20:46, Matt Hoppes <mhoppes@indigowireless.com> wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Cogent isn't peering with Google IPv6, shouldn't the traffic flow out to one of their peer points where another peer DOES peer with Google IPv6 and get you in?
Isn't that how the Internet is suppose to work?
On 2/24/16 2:43 PM, Damien Burke wrote:
Not sure. I got the same thing today as well.
Is this some kind of ipv6 war?
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ian Clark Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 10:25 AM To: NANOG Subject: Cogent & Google IPv6
Anyone know what's actually going on here? We received the following information from the two of them, and this just started a week or so ago.
*From Cogent, the transit provider for a branch office of ours:*
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.
*From Google (re: Cogent):*
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
-- Ian Clark Lead Network Engineer DreamHost
I have already shut down peering with cogent over ipv6 entirely (two weeks ago) over this issue. Cogent needs to get it together and work it out. Google is our overlord - you cannot refuse them. -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Patrick W. Gilmore Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 12:12 PM To: NANOG list Subject: Re: Cogent & Google IPv6 Are HE & Google the new L3 & FT? Nah, L3 would never have baked Cogent a cake. :) Shall we start a pool? Only problem is, should the pool be “who will disconnect from Cogent next?” or “when will Cogent blink?” I’m voting for the former. -- TTFN, patrick
On Feb 24, 2016, at 3:08 PM, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> wrote:
This is Google saying that Google does not want to pay for traffic to Cogent. If Cogent wants to exchange any traffic with Google, Cogent is invited to peer directly with Google. Of course Cogent refuses. And now Cogent is not only missing the part of IPv6 internet that is Hurricane Electric single homed but also everything Google.
Why does Cogent refuse? They used to deliver this traffic on free peering with another tier 1 provider. Now they are asked to deliver the same traffic for the same price (free) on a direct peering session. They won't because Cogent believes Google should pay for this traffic. That another Cogent customer already paid for the traffic does not matter. They want double dipping or nothing. So nothing it is.
Seems to me that if you are serious about IPv6 you can not use Cogent as your primary or secondary transit provider. You can use them as your third if you want to.
Regards,
Baldur
On 24 February 2016 at 20:46, Matt Hoppes <mhoppes@indigowireless.com> wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Cogent isn't peering with Google IPv6, shouldn't the traffic flow out to one of their peer points where another peer DOES peer with Google IPv6 and get you in?
Isn't that how the Internet is suppose to work?
On 2/24/16 2:43 PM, Damien Burke wrote:
Not sure. I got the same thing today as well.
Is this some kind of ipv6 war?
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ian Clark Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 10:25 AM To: NANOG Subject: Cogent & Google IPv6
Anyone know what's actually going on here? We received the following information from the two of them, and this just started a week or so ago.
*From Cogent, the transit provider for a branch office of ours:*
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.
*From Google (re: Cogent):*
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
-- Ian Clark Lead Network Engineer DreamHost
I think actually, that Cogent is the new SPRINT. I remember a time when virtually all of the internet Transited SPRINT and it was nearly impossible to avoid going through SPRINT’s network. Then SPRINT started de-peering left and right. Today, as near as I can tell, this strategy has made then an “also-ran”. Cogent is already essentially the weakest of any who can lay claim to the idea of “tier-1” whatever that’s supposed to mean (varies widely depending on who you ask). For now, Cogent is hoping that they can force the same environment in IPv6 as they have enjoyed in IPv4 while ignoring the reality that many players have surpassed them in IPv6 and that there are new opportunities to go settlement free in IPv6 that didn’t exist in the IPv4 world. The IPv6 game is somewhat different than IPv4 and recent rulings from the FCC are going to potentially change the game even further. My guess is that Cogent won’t blink, but they will continue to become more and more isolated from more and more IPv6 networks who become wise to their game. As a result, they will become less and less relevant in the market until they join SPRINT on the also-ran list. Owen
On Feb 24, 2016, at 12:12 , Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net> wrote:
Are HE & Google the new L3 & FT?
Nah, L3 would never have baked Cogent a cake. :)
Shall we start a pool? Only problem is, should the pool be “who will disconnect from Cogent next?” or “when will Cogent blink?” I’m voting for the former.
-- TTFN, patrick
On Feb 24, 2016, at 3:08 PM, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> wrote:
This is Google saying that Google does not want to pay for traffic to Cogent. If Cogent wants to exchange any traffic with Google, Cogent is invited to peer directly with Google. Of course Cogent refuses. And now Cogent is not only missing the part of IPv6 internet that is Hurricane Electric single homed but also everything Google.
Why does Cogent refuse? They used to deliver this traffic on free peering with another tier 1 provider. Now they are asked to deliver the same traffic for the same price (free) on a direct peering session. They won't because Cogent believes Google should pay for this traffic. That another Cogent customer already paid for the traffic does not matter. They want double dipping or nothing. So nothing it is.
Seems to me that if you are serious about IPv6 you can not use Cogent as your primary or secondary transit provider. You can use them as your third if you want to.
Regards,
Baldur
On 24 February 2016 at 20:46, Matt Hoppes <mhoppes@indigowireless.com> wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Cogent isn't peering with Google IPv6, shouldn't the traffic flow out to one of their peer points where another peer DOES peer with Google IPv6 and get you in?
Isn't that how the Internet is suppose to work?
On 2/24/16 2:43 PM, Damien Burke wrote:
Not sure. I got the same thing today as well.
Is this some kind of ipv6 war?
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ian Clark Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 10:25 AM To: NANOG Subject: Cogent & Google IPv6
Anyone know what's actually going on here? We received the following information from the two of them, and this just started a week or so ago.
*From Cogent, the transit provider for a branch office of ours:*
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.
*From Google (re: Cogent):*
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
-- Ian Clark Lead Network Engineer DreamHost
On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 14:46:56 -0500, Matt Hoppes <mhoppes@indigowireless.com> wrote:
Isn't that how the Internet is suppose to work?
Perhaps. But that's not how *Cogent* works. They have a very idiotic view of "Tier 1". They have no transit connections with anyone; someone is paying them for every prefix they accept. Translation: No one in their right mind does business with Cogent.
Isn't that how "Tier 1s" have always operated? Like, always? Customers or peers with peers subject to various requirements. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ricky Beam" <jfbeam@gmail.com> To: "Matt Hoppes" <mhoppes@indigowireless.com> Cc: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 2:18:24 PM Subject: Re: Cogent & Google IPv6 On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 14:46:56 -0500, Matt Hoppes <mhoppes@indigowireless.com> wrote:
Isn't that how the Internet is suppose to work?
Perhaps. But that's not how *Cogent* works. They have a very idiotic view of "Tier 1". They have no transit connections with anyone; someone is paying them for every prefix they accept. Translation: No one in their right mind does business with Cogent.
“Tier One” used to mean SFI or customer downstream to every prefix on the ‘Net. Today it is more like “transit free”, since some “tier one” providers have paid peering. And Ricky is wrong, the vast majority of prefixes Cogent routes have zero dollars behind them. Cogent gets paid by customers, not peers. (At least not the big ones.) -- TTFN, patrick
On Feb 24, 2016, at 3:26 PM, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
Isn't that how "Tier 1s" have always operated? Like, always? Customers or peers with peers subject to various requirements.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ricky Beam" <jfbeam@gmail.com> To: "Matt Hoppes" <mhoppes@indigowireless.com> Cc: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 2:18:24 PM Subject: Re: Cogent & Google IPv6
On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 14:46:56 -0500, Matt Hoppes <mhoppes@indigowireless.com> wrote:
Isn't that how the Internet is suppose to work?
Perhaps. But that's not how *Cogent* works. They have a very idiotic view of "Tier 1". They have no transit connections with anyone; someone is paying them for every prefix they accept.
Translation: No one in their right mind does business with Cogent.
On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 15:48:22 -0500, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net> wrote:
And Ricky is wrong, the vast majority of prefixes Cogent routes have zero dollars behind them. Cogent gets paid by customers, not peers. (At least not the big ones.)
Show me a single connection to Cogent for which Cogent isn't being paid. Cogent is the only provider I've ever heard of that will not do any form of settlement-free peering.
On Feb 24, 2016, at 4:48 PM, Ricky Beam <jfbeam@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 15:48:22 -0500, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net> wrote:
And Ricky is wrong, the vast majority of prefixes Cogent routes have zero dollars behind them. Cogent gets paid by customers, not peers. (At least not the big ones.)
Show me a single connection to Cogent for which Cogent isn't being paid. Cogent is the only provider I've ever heard of that will not do any form of settlement-free peering.
You really think AT&T, Comcast, Level 3, Sprint, Verizon, etc. are paying Cogent? Good thing I put my drink down before I read that. Or do you think Cogent is paying all of them? That is a possibility, but it means that Cogent is not getting paid - by definition. -- TTFN, patrick
participants (14)
-
Baldur Norddahl -
Constantine A. Murenin -
Damien Burke -
Ian Clark -
Matt Hoppes -
Matthew D. Hardeman -
Max Tulyev -
Mike Hammett -
Owen DeLong -
Paras Jha -
Patrick W. Gilmore -
Randy Bush -
Ricky Beam -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu