Cogent & Google IPv6

Mike Hammett nanog at ics-il.net
Wed Feb 24 20:16:20 UTC 2016


Whomever hurts the most will blink first. I don't really care who that is. I have no ill will towards "double dipping". Either they do or they don't offer the desired connectivity and I'm moving on. 




----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick at ianai.net> 
To: "NANOG list" <nanog at nanog.org> 
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 2:12:07 PM 
Subject: Re: Cogent & Google IPv6 

Are HE & Google the new L3 & FT? 

Nah, L3 would never have baked Cogent a cake. :) 

Shall we start a pool? Only problem is, should the pool be “who will disconnect from Cogent next?” or “when will Cogent blink?” I’m voting for the former. 

-- 
TTFN, 
patrick 

> On Feb 24, 2016, at 3:08 PM, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl at gmail.com> wrote: 
> 
> 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. 
> 
> 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. 
> 
> 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. 
> 
> Regards, 
> 
> Baldur 
> 
> 
> 
> On 24 February 2016 at 20:46, Matt Hoppes <mhoppes at indigowireless.com> 
> 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 another 
>> 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 at 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 ago. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> *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 
>>> 
>>> 




More information about the NANOG mailing list