Cogent & Google IPv6

Wed Feb 24 21:02:09 UTC 2016

*nods* and everything is pros and cons. In one's situation, does Cogent have enough pros to overcome the cons? Same for HE or any other carrier. If I get full tables (v4 and b6) from multiple networks and\or I peer with the networks that are missing from a particular provider's offering, I may very well not give a darn about it being missing. I may never have even used it in the first place. If whatever advantages to me outweigh that loss, so be it. 

----- 
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 2:27:21 PM 
Subject: Re: Cogent & Google IPv6 

Agreed on all points. “Double dipping” is not morally abhorrent, or even slightly slimy. However, Cogent customers paid Cogent to connect to The Internet, not “The other networks that are paying Cogent”. So in this case, if I had to make a choice of which provider to drop, I’d stick with Google. (I do not have to make such a decision.) 

One could claim the same about HE vs. Cogent. However, I’m still going to give the nod to the people saying “we are happy to connect” over the people who say “pay me to connect”. Obviously a lot of details I’m glossing over, but HE does have, IMHO, a good argument for v6 peering with Cogent. Doesn’t mean either is “wrong", just that is how I would vote with my wallet if I had to make the choice. (Again, I do not.) 

So when FB does the same thing, when Comcast does the same thing, when Apple does the same thing, when …. When will Cogent feel enough pain to relent? 

Or will this simply delay the full implementation of IPv6 even more, and Cogent won’t notice because everyone falls back to v4? 

-- 
TTFN, 
patrick 

> On Feb 24, 2016, at 3:16 PM, Mike Hammett <nanog at ics-il.net> wrote: 
> 
> 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 
>>>> 
>>>> 
> 