[187756] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Cogent & Google IPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Constantine A. Murenin)
Thu Feb 25 16:40:30 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <40947023-CF8B-440D-9634-85C53C1E8E39@ipifony.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 13:40:27 -0800
From: "Constantine A. Murenin" <mureninc@gmail.com>
To: "Matthew D. Hardeman" <mhardeman@ipifony.com>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
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> w=
rote:
> What=E2=80=99s truly amazing to me about this is that only Cogent seems t=
o be engaging in this kind of behavior on IPv6. Furthermore, the only peop=
le Cogent is hurting with their willful ignorance of the changing peering l=
andscape in IPv6 is THEIR OWN PAYING CUSTOMERS. Which is really bizarre wh=
en you think about it. I=E2=80=99m trying to understand this from Cogent=
=E2=80=99s perspective and failing. They are creating a problem that impac=
ts 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 anothe=
r
>>> 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 a=
go.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *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
