[188015] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Cogent & Google IPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Mar 3 03:43:16 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <321616AE-EC19-4DD7-9A2D-02378ED73D5B@ianai.net>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 14:05:20 -0800
To: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
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=E2=80=99s =
network.
Then SPRINT started de-peering left and right. Today, as near as I can =
tell, this strategy has made then an =E2=80=9Calso-ran=E2=80=9D.
Cogent is already essentially the weakest of any who can lay claim to =
the idea of =E2=80=9Ctier-1=E2=80=9D whatever that=E2=80=99s 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=E2=80=99t 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=E2=80=99t 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:
>=20
> Are HE & Google the new L3 & FT?
>=20
> Nah, L3 would never have baked Cogent a cake. :)
>=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
> TTFN,
> patrick
>=20
>> 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
>=20
