Cogent - Google - HE Fun

Tue Mar 15 02:40:02 UTC 2016

It looks like Google is experimenting with a change in course on this issue.

Here’s a look at the IPv6 routing table tonight on my router bordering Cogent.

*>i 2607:f8b0:4013::/48
                    2620:121:a000:f0::2(fe80::618:d6ff:fef1:c540)
                                          0        150          0       15169 i
*                    2001:550:2:22::1d:1(fe80::12f3:11ff:fe29:2c24)
                                          0        90           0       174 6461 15169 i
*>i 2607:f8b0:4014::/48
                    2620:121:a000:f0::2(fe80::618:d6ff:fef1:c540)
                                          0        110          0       6939 6461 15169 i
*                    2001:550:2:22::1d:1(fe80::12f3:11ff:fe29:2c24)
                                          0        90           0       174 6461 15169 i
*>i 2607:f8b0:4016::/48
                    2620:121:a000:f0::2(fe80::618:d6ff:fef1:c540)
                                          0        150          0       15169 i
*                    2001:550:2:22::1d:1(fe80::12f3:11ff:fe29:2c24)
                                          0        90           0       174 6461 15169 i

This is only 3 IPv6 prefixes (out of 47 prefixes seen in my IPv6 routing table).  Two of these prefixes I see via direct peering with Google and, alternatively, via Cogent through Zayo transit.  One of these prefixes doesn’t advertise in Google’s direct peering session (at least not in mine, but HE picks it up via Zayo and Cogent picks it up via Zayo).

All of these are /48 subnets of their greater 2620:f8b0::/32 prefix, which does show up in both their direct session and in HE via Zayo.

> On Mar 13, 2016, at 9:31 AM, Dennis Burgess <dmburgess at linktechs.net> wrote:
> 
> In the end, google has made a choice. I think these kinds of choices will delay IPv6 adoption.  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Damien Burke [mailto:damien at supremebytes.com] 
> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 2:51 PM
> To: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.mu>; Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>; Dennis Burgess <dmburgess at linktechs.net>
> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog at nanog.org>
> Subject: RE: Cogent - Google - HE Fun
> 
> Just received an updated statement from cogent support:
> 
> "We appreciate your concerns. This is a known issue that originates with Google as it is up to their discretion as to how they announce routes to us v4 or v6. 
> 
> Once again, apologies for any inconvenience."
> 
> And:
> 
> "The SLA does not cover route transit beyond our network. We cannot route to IPs that are not announced to us by the IP owner, directly or through a network peer."
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4190 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20160314/e40451d2/attachment.bin>