Did IPv6 between HE and Google ever get resolved?

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Mon Apr 1 06:29:50 UTC 2019


Send them another cake…

Owen


> On Mar 31, 2019, at 18:19 , Mike Leber <mleber at he.net> wrote:
> 
> The routes you see are Cogent using IPv6 leaks.
> 
> We chase these down as we see them.
> 
> Obviously if Cogent is happy enough to use leaks, we could just give
> them our IPv6 customer routes directly.  ;)
> 
> As a backbone operator, I'd prefer all routing we do (for at least the
> first hop leaving our network) to be intentional.  Perhaps they are the
> same?
> 
> Should I wait for to get an interesting email?  (haha)
> 
> Mike.
> 
> 
> On 3/31/19 6:10 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 6:07 PM Christopher Morrow
>> <morrowc.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> thread subject still says 'google and he', I don't think there's ever
>>> been problems between google/he for v6.
>>> I think there are some issues from cogent - > he over v6 :(
>>> 
>>> Looking at a sample AS6939 customer link I see no:
>>>  ".* 174$"
>>>  ".* 174 .*$"
>>> 
>>> routes in the bgp stream :(
>>> 
>>> Looking at a AS174 customer link session I see no:
>>>  ".* 6939$"
>>>  ".* 6939 .*"
>>> 
>>> routes in the bgp stream :(
>> Apologies, I do actually see a path from 174 -> 6939 (well 28 paths):
>>  174 <many different 3-5 asn> 6939 <customer asn>
>> 
>> it's clearly not all of HE -> Cogent, and it's clearly not supposed to
>> be working (I would think).
>> -chris
>> 
>>> -chris
>>> 
>>>>> Matt
>>>>> 
>>>> Ah.  Sorry, the changed subject line didn't thread in with this,
>>>> so this showed up as an unreplied singleton in my inbox.
>>>> 
>>>> Apologies for the duplicated response; at least this won't
>>>> be a lonely singleton in anyone else's inbox now.  ^_^;
>>>> 
>>>> Matt
>>>> 
> 




More information about the NANOG mailing list