Cogent <=> Google Peering issue

Thu Feb 18 07:50:17 UTC 2016

Cogent,

Can you stop peering with Verizon in the meantime? Please? D:

-----Original Message-----
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Fred Hollis
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 10:25 PM
To: nanog at nanog.org
Subject: Re: Cogent <=> Google Peering issue

Yes, it's a global Cogent problem. We are in contact with them as well and were told that they're aware of that but can't do anything about it on their own.

> Dear Cogent Customer,
>
> Cogent NOC team has been working with Verizon as well as Google to assist with resolving the issue. After further investigation there is no issue on the Cogent network which is causing the issue that you are seeing. Currently we have asked for  Google and Verizon to work together to assist with resolving the issue which has been isolated to their end of the spectrum.
>
> As you can see, this issue is beyond Cogent control nevertheless, we continue pushing to get it resolve. We will provide you with further updates as they arise.

I am getting a "Destination unreachable" from their closest router. We did rerouting through a different carrier, so not a big problem for us, but still annoying.

> # ping6 ipv6.google.com
> PING ipv6.google.com(dfw06s47-in-x0e.1e100.net) 56 data bytes
>    From te0-0-0-1.rcr12.sea03.atlas.cogentco.com icmp_seq=1 
> Destination
> unreachable: No route

On 18.02.2016 at 07:01 Damien Burke wrote:
> I am currently having a issue with cogent and google over ipv6. My traceroute seems to hit cogent, Verizon, and then just dies.
>
> I have a case open with both and each tells me the other is working on it.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Max Tulyev
> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 1:35 PM
> To: nanog at nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Cogent <=> Google Peering issue
>
> If my telepathy still works fine and I understood your question well - 
> then the answer is "NO, that is not a global well-known issue" ;)
>
> On 17.02.16 18:15, Fred Hollis wrote:
>> Anyone else aware of it?
>>
>