[187737] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Cogent & Google IPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Wed Feb 24 15:12:13 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAPkb-7BOi70oWv17H1nzxijZ0JbLcdsHgBzj-qMN6qK-eR2rqw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 15:12:07 -0500
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
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 =E2=80=9Cwho =
will disconnect from Cogent next?=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9Cwhen will Cogent =
blink?=E2=80=9D I=E2=80=99m voting for the former.
--=20
TTFN,
patrick
> On Feb 24, 2016, at 3:08 PM, Baldur Norddahl =
<baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> Regards,
>=20
> Baldur
>=20
>=20
>=20
> On 24 February 2016 at 20:46, Matt Hoppes <mhoppes@indigowireless.com>
> wrote:
>=20
>> 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?
>>=20
>> Isn't that how the Internet is suppose to work?
>>=20
>>=20
>> On 2/24/16 2:43 PM, Damien Burke wrote:
>>=20
>>> Not sure. I got the same thing today as well.
>>>=20
>>> Is this some kind of ipv6 war?
>>>=20
>>> -----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
>>>=20
>>> 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.
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> *=46rom Cogent, the transit provider for a branch office of ours:*
>>>=20
>>> Dear Cogent Customer,
>>>=20
>>> Thank you for contacting Cogent Customer Support for information =
about
>>> the Google IPv6 addresses you are unable to reach.
>>>=20
>>> Google uses transit providers to announce their IPv4 routes to =
Cogent.
>>>=20
>>> At this time however, Google has chosen not to announce their IPv6 =
routes
>>> to Cogent through transit providers.
>>>=20
>>> We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause you and will =
notify you
>>> if there is an update to the situation.
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> *=46rom Google (re: Cogent):*
>>>=20
>>> 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.
>>>=20
>>> 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.
>>>=20
>>> For more information in how to peer directly with Google please =
visit
>>> https://peering.google.com
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> --
>>> Ian Clark
>>> Lead Network Engineer
>>> DreamHost
>>>=20
>>>=20
