Cogent & Google IPv6
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.
Intelligent Computing Solutions
----- 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.
> 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.
> On 24 February 2016 at 20:46, Matt Hoppes <mhoppes at indigowireless.com>
>> 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
>>> Ian Clark
>>> Lead Network Engineer
More information about the NANOG