Cogent & Google IPv6

Constantine A. Murenin mureninc at gmail.com
Thu Feb 25 21:40:27 UTC 2016


I completely agree, the only possible explanation would be if they
actually get paid by Google for IPv4 transit (either directly or
indirectly), or somehow use Google's IPv4 traffic as a leverage to pad
the in/out ratios (and/or overall traffic levels) such as to continue
to enjoy settlement-free peering with other transit providers.

C.

On 25 February 2016 at 13:04, Matthew D. Hardeman <mhardeman at ipifony.com> wrote:
> What’s truly amazing to me about this is that only Cogent seems to be engaging in this kind of behavior on IPv6.  Furthermore, the only people Cogent is hurting with their willful ignorance of the changing peering landscape in IPv6 is THEIR OWN PAYING CUSTOMERS.  Which is really bizarre when you think about it.  I’m trying to understand this from Cogent’s perspective and failing.  They are creating a problem that impacts only their customers while others do not create this same problem.  How can they imagine this is benefiting them?
>
>
>> On Feb 24, 2016, at 1:53 PM, Max Tulyev <maxtul at netassist.ua> wrote:
>>
>> If you connected to Internet ONLY through Cogent - there is no other
>> way. If you have another upstreams - Google should be reachable.
>>
>> On 24.02.16 21:46, Matt Hoppes 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