[187742] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Cogent & Google IPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Wed Feb 24 15:31:07 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: <511753352.11048.1456344975867.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 15:27:21 -0500
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Agreed on all points. =E2=80=9CDouble dipping=E2=80=9D is not morally =
abhorrent, or even slightly slimy. However, Cogent customers paid Cogent =
to connect to The Internet, not =E2=80=9CThe other networks that are =
paying Cogent=E2=80=9D. So in this case, if I had to make a choice of =
which provider to drop, I=E2=80=99d stick with Google. (I do not have to =
make such a decision.)
One could claim the same about HE vs. Cogent. However, I=E2=80=99m still =
going to give the nod to the people saying =E2=80=9Cwe are happy to =
connect=E2=80=9D over the people who say =E2=80=9Cpay me to connect=E2=80=9D=
. Obviously a lot of details I=E2=80=99m glossing over, but HE does =
have, IMHO, a good argument for v6 peering with Cogent. Doesn=E2=80=99t =
mean either is =E2=80=9Cwrong", 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 =E2=80=A6. When will Cogent feel enough =
pain to relent?
Or will this simply delay the full implementation of IPv6 even more, and =
Cogent won=E2=80=99t notice because everyone falls back to v4?
--=20
TTFN,
patrick
> On Feb 24, 2016, at 3:16 PM, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
>=20
> 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.=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> -----=20
> Mike Hammett=20
> Intelligent Computing Solutions=20
> http://www.ics-il.com=20
>=20
> Midwest-IX=20
> http://www.midwest-ix.com=20
>=20
> ----- Original Message -----
>=20
> From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>=20
> To: "NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org>=20
> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 2:12:07 PM=20
> Subject: Re: Cogent & Google IPv6=20
>=20
> Are HE & Google the new L3 & FT?=20
>=20
> Nah, L3 would never have baked Cogent a cake. :)=20
>=20
> 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
>=20
> --=20
> TTFN,=20
> patrick=20
>=20
>> On Feb 24, 2016, at 3:08 PM, Baldur Norddahl =
<baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> wrote:=20
>>=20
>> This is Google saying that Google does not want to pay for traffic to=20=
>> Cogent. If Cogent wants to exchange any traffic with Google, Cogent =
is=20
>> invited to peer directly with Google. Of course Cogent refuses. And =
now=20
>> Cogent is not only missing the part of IPv6 internet that is =
Hurricane=20
>> Electric single homed but also everything Google.=20
>>=20
>> Why does Cogent refuse? They used to deliver this traffic on free =
peering=20
>> with another tier 1 provider. Now they are asked to deliver the same=20=
>> traffic for the same price (free) on a direct peering session. They =
won't=20
>> because Cogent believes Google should pay for this traffic. That =
another=20
>> Cogent customer already paid for the traffic does not matter. They =
want=20
>> double dipping or nothing. So nothing it is.=20
>>=20
>> Seems to me that if you are serious about IPv6 you can not use Cogent =
as=20
>> your primary or secondary transit provider. You can use them as your =
third=20
>> if you want to.=20
>>=20
>> Regards,=20
>>=20
>> Baldur=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> On 24 February 2016 at 20:46, Matt Hoppes =
<mhoppes@indigowireless.com>=20
>> wrote:=20
>>=20
>>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Cogent isn't peering with Google =
IPv6,=20
>>> shouldn't the traffic flow out to one of their peer points where =
another=20
>>> peer DOES peer with Google IPv6 and get you in?=20
>>>=20
>>> Isn't that how the Internet is suppose to work?=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> On 2/24/16 2:43 PM, Damien Burke wrote:=20
>>>=20
>>>> Not sure. I got the same thing today as well.=20
>>>>=20
>>>> Is this some kind of ipv6 war?=20
>>>>=20
>>>> -----Original Message-----=20
>>>> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ian Clark=20=
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 10:25 AM=20
>>>> To: NANOG=20
>>>> Subject: Cogent & Google IPv6=20
>>>>=20
>>>> Anyone know what's actually going on here? We received the =
following=20
>>>> information from the two of them, and this just started a week or =
so ago.=20
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> *=46rom Cogent, the transit provider for a branch office of ours:*=20=
>>>>=20
>>>> Dear Cogent Customer,=20
>>>>=20
>>>> Thank you for contacting Cogent Customer Support for information =
about=20
>>>> the Google IPv6 addresses you are unable to reach.=20
>>>>=20
>>>> Google uses transit providers to announce their IPv4 routes to =
Cogent.=20
>>>>=20
>>>> At this time however, Google has chosen not to announce their IPv6 =
routes=20
>>>> to Cogent through transit providers.=20
>>>>=20
>>>> We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause you and will =
notify you=20
>>>> if there is an update to the situation.=20
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> *=46rom Google (re: Cogent):*=20
>>>>=20
>>>> Unfortunately it seems that your transit provider does not have =
IPv6=20
>>>> connectivity with Google. We suggest you ask your transit provider =
to look=20
>>>> for alternatives to interconnect with us.=20
>>>>=20
>>>> Google maintains an open interconnect policy for IPv6 and welcomes =
any=20
>>>> network to peer with us for access via IPv6 (and IPv4). For those =
networks=20
>>>> that aren't able, or chose not to peer with Google via IPv6, they =
are able=20
>>>> to reach us through any of a large number of transit providers.=20
>>>>=20
>>>> For more information in how to peer directly with Google please =
visit=20
>>>> https://peering.google.com=20
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> --=20
>>>> Ian Clark=20
>>>> Lead Network Engineer=20
>>>> DreamHost=20
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>=20
