[188164] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Mar 10 10:54:55 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <B542CC3757123745918E6B7E4D2EEE93D73653@zeus.lti.local>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 07:51:42 -0800
To: Dennis Burgess <dmburgess@linktechs.net>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I think it=E2=80=99s a little different from what you say=E2=80=A6
I think Google already reaches Cogent for IPv4 via transit.
Google, long ago, announced that they would not be purchasing IPv6 =
transit and that they have an open peering policy for anyone who wishes =
to reach them. In order to avoid significant disruption, they haven=E2=80=99=
t terminated their IPv4 transit contracts, but it certainly makes sense =
that they would not be pursuing IPv6 transit contracts.
The situation with Hurricane Electric is somewhat similar.
Google and HE are two of the most significant IPv6 networks out there. =
In the IPv6 world, Cogent is basically an also-ran so far.
The peering dynamics are different in IPv4 and IPv6 because the adoption =
rates and deployments in various networks have been different.
Cogent is sticking their head in the sand and pretending that their IPv4 =
peering status should carry over into IPv6 automatically.
One of two things will eventually happen=E2=80=A6
Either Cogent will win this game of chicken and the IPv6 networks that =
are not paying to reach them by transit now will start paying to do so, =
or, Cogent will lose this game of chicken and become progressively less =
relevant in the IPv6 internet.
Personally, my bet is on the latter. For historical precedent, I refer =
you to SPRINT (AS1239).
Owen
> On Mar 10, 2016, at 07:09 , Dennis Burgess <dmburgess@linktechs.net> =
wrote:
>=20
> Not wishing to get into a pissing war with who is right or wrong, but =
it sounds like google already pays or has an agreement with cogent for =
v4, as that's unaffected, cogent says google is simply not advertising =
v6 prefixes to them, so, how is that cogent's fault?
>=20
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Lewis [mailto:jlewis@lewis.org]=20
> Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2016 11:26 AM
> To: J=C3=BCrgen Jaritsch <JJaritsch@anexia-it.com>
> Cc: Dennis Burgess <dmburgess@linktechs.net>; North American Network =
Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
> Subject: Re: AW: Cogent - Google - HE Fun
>=20
> In other words, GOOG is playing peering chicken with Cogent for IPv6. =
I'm not surprised. I suggested it during talks with GOOG roughly 10 =
years ago...not saying I had any influence...I'm pretty sure I did not. =
:)
>=20
> GOOG wants Cogent to peer. Cogent wants GOOG to pay for transit (from =
them or someone else to get to Cogent). If you're well peered / =
multihomed, it's not much of an issue. If you're a single-homed Cogent =
customer, you should complain to Cogent that they're not providing full
> IPv6 connectivity.
>=20
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2016, J=C3=BCrgen Jaritsch wrote:
>=20
>> Hi,
>>=20
>> mail from Cogent:
>>>>>>=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
>> Mail from Google:
>>>>>>=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=20=
>> https://peering.google.com <<<<
>>=20
>> best regards
>>=20
>> J=C3=BCrgen Jaritsch
>> Head of Network & Infrastructure
>>=20
>> ANEXIA Internetdienstleistungs GmbH
>>=20
>> Telefon: +43-5-0556-300
>> Telefax: +43-5-0556-500
>>=20
>> E-Mail: JJaritsch@anexia-it.com
>> Web: http://www.anexia-it.com
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Anschrift Hauptsitz Klagenfurt: Feldkirchnerstra=C3=9Fe 140, 9020=20
>> Klagenfurt
>> Gesch=C3=A4ftsf=C3=BChrer: Alexander Windbichler
>> Firmenbuch: FN 289918a | Gerichtsstand: Klagenfurt | UID-Nummer: AT=20=
>> U63216601
>>=20
>>=20
>> -----Urspr=C3=BCngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+jjaritsch=3Danexia-it.com@nanog.org] =
Im=20
>> Auftrag von Dennis Burgess
>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 09. M=C3=A4rz 2016 17:01
>> An: North American Network Operators' Group
>> Betreff: Cogent - Google - HE Fun
>>=20
>> I just noticed that I am NOT getting IPV6 Google prefixes though =
Cogent at all. I was told google pulled all of their peering with =
Cogent? If I bring up a SIT tunnel with HE, I get the prefixes but at =
horrible speed and latency .. anyone else?
>>=20
>> [DennisBurgessSignature]
>> www.linktechs.net<http://www.linktechs.net/> - 314-735-0270 x103 -=20
>> dmburgess@linktechs.net<mailto:dmburgess@linktechs.net>
>>=20
>>=20
>=20
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route
> | therefore you are _________ =
http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
