[188319] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dennis Bohn)
Wed Mar 16 09:57:03 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <714CF43F-7CFE-45D4-B008-3E4EACCBAEDD@n5tech.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 09:56:59 -0400
From: Dennis Bohn <bohn@adelphi.edu>
To: Todd Crane <todd.crane@n5tech.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
So if someone (say an eyeball network) was putting out a RFQ for a gig say
of upstream cxn and wanted to spec full reachability to the full V6 net,
what would the wording for that spec look like?
Would that get $provider's attention?
On Mar 15, 2016 12:50 AM, "Todd Crane" <todd.crane@n5tech.com> wrote:
>
> > This is only tangentially related but it looks like HE has surpassed
> Cogent on IPv4 adjacencies. That said the source probably suffers from a
> selection bias at the very least.
> >
> > http://bgp.he.net/report/peers
> >
> >
> Hit reply by mistake instead of reply all.
>
> > Todd Crane
> >
> >> On Mar 14, 2016, at 8:40 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman <mhardeman@ipifony.co=
m>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> It looks like Google is experimenting with a change in course on this
> issue.
> >>
> >> Here=E2=80=99s a look at the IPv6 routing table tonight on my router b=
ordering
> Cogent.
> >>
> >> *>i 2607:f8b0:4013::/48
> >> 2620:121:a000:f0::2(fe80::618:d6ff:fef1:c540)
> >> 0 150 0
> 15169 i
> >> * 2001:550:2:22::1d:1(fe80::12f3:11ff:fe29:2c24)
> >> 0 90 0
> 174 6461 15169 i
> >> *>i 2607:f8b0:4014::/48
> >> 2620:121:a000:f0::2(fe80::618:d6ff:fef1:c540)
> >> 0 110 0
> 6939 6461 15169 i
> >> * 2001:550:2:22::1d:1(fe80::12f3:11ff:fe29:2c24)
> >> 0 90 0
> 174 6461 15169 i
> >> *>i 2607:f8b0:4016::/48
> >> 2620:121:a000:f0::2(fe80::618:d6ff:fef1:c540)
> >> 0 150 0
> 15169 i
> >> * 2001:550:2:22::1d:1(fe80::12f3:11ff:fe29:2c24)
> >> 0 90 0
> 174 6461 15169 i
> >>
> >>
> >> This is only 3 IPv6 prefixes (out of 47 prefixes seen in my IPv6
> routing table). Two of these prefixes I see via direct peering with Goog=
le
> and, alternatively, via Cogent through Zayo transit. One of these prefix=
es
> doesn=E2=80=99t advertise in Google=E2=80=99s direct peering session (at =
least not in mine,
> but HE picks it up via Zayo and Cogent picks it up via Zayo).
> >>
> >> All of these are /48 subnets of their greater 2620:f8b0::/32 prefix,
> which does show up in both their direct session and in HE via Zayo.
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Mar 13, 2016, at 9:31 AM, Dennis Burgess <dmburgess@linktechs.net>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> In the end, google has made a choice. I think these kinds of choices
> will delay IPv6 adoption.
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Damien Burke [mailto:damien@supremebytes.com]
> >>> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 2:51 PM
> >>> To: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>; Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>;
> Dennis Burgess <dmburgess@linktechs.net>
> >>> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
> >>> Subject: RE: Cogent - Google - HE Fun
> >>>
> >>> Just received an updated statement from cogent support:
> >>>
> >>> "We appreciate your concerns. This is a known issue that originates
> with Google as it is up to their discretion as to how they announce route=
s
> to us v4 or v6.
> >>>
> >>> Once again, apologies for any inconvenience."
> >>>
> >>> And:
> >>>
> >>> "The SLA does not cover route transit beyond our network. We cannot
> route to IPs that are not announced to us by the IP owner, directly or
> through a network peer."
> >>
>
