Cogent & Google IPv6
damien at supremebytes.com
Wed Feb 24 20:19:37 UTC 2016
I have already shut down peering with cogent over ipv6 entirely (two weeks ago) over this issue.
Cogent needs to get it together and work it out. Google is our overlord - you cannot refuse them.
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Patrick W. Gilmore
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 12:12 PM
To: NANOG list
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 https://peering.google.com
>>> Ian Clark
>>> Lead Network Engineer
More information about the NANOG