<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>On a related note, I recently noticed Google became reachable
again over IPv6 from Cogent (I didn't have any automated testing
in place so this can well have happened long ago - last posts I
can find about the issue are from mid-2020).</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>It's apparently through Tata/6453 so looks like they figured it
out. Does anyone have context on when / how this was done? Can't
find anything on the internet!</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>From Cogent's LG:</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p> 6453 15169<br>
2001:550:0:1000::261c:143 (metric 102020) from
2001:550:0:1000::261c:153 (38.28.1.67)<br>
Origin IGP, metric 4294967294, localpref 100, valid,
internal, best, group-best<br>
Received Path ID 0, Local Path ID 1, version 175370<br>
Community: 174:11401 174:20666 174:21100 174:22005<br>
Originator: 38.28.1.67, Cluster list: 38.28.1.83</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 13/11/2023 20:38, Ryan Hamel wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:MN0P222MB0599B2A9F2C423ED8F1FCA2CC1B3A@MN0P222MB0599.NAMP222.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;">P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</style>
<div class="elementToProof">
<div
style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
Matt,</div>
<div
style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div
style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
Why would HE hijack Cogent's IP space? That would end in a
lawsuit and potentially even more de-peering between them.</div>
<div
style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div id="Signature">
<div
style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
Ryan Hamel</div>
</div>
</div>
<div
style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"
class="elementToProof">
<br>
</div>
<hr tabindex="-1" style="display:inline-block; width:98%">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font
style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"
face="Calibri, sans-serif"><b>From:</b> NANOG
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nanog-bounces+ryan=rkhtech.org@nanog.org"><nanog-bounces+ryan=rkhtech.org@nanog.org></a> on behalf of
Matt Corallo <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nanog@as397444.net"><nanog@as397444.net></a><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, November 13, 2023 11:32 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Bryan Fields <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Bryan@bryanfields.net"><Bryan@bryanfields.net></a>;
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:nanog@nanog.org">nanog@nanog.org</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nanog@nanog.org"><nanog@nanog.org></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Am I the only one who thinks this is
disconcerting?</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div class="BodyFragment"><font size="2"><span
style="font-size:11pt">
<div class="PlainText">Caution: This is an external email
and may be malicious. Please take care when clicking links
or opening attachments.<br>
<br>
<br>
On 11/8/23 2:23 PM, Bryan Fields wrote:<br>
> On 11/8/23 2:25 PM, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:owen@Delong.com">owen@Delong.com</a> wrote:<br>
>> Seems irresponsible to me that a root-server (or
other critical DNS provider) would engage in a<br>
>> peering war to the exclusion of workable DNS.<br>
><br>
> I've brought this up before and the root servers are
not really an IANA function IIRC. There's not<br>
> much governance over them, other than what's on
root-servers.org. I think a case could be made that<br>
> C is in violation of the polices on that page and RFC
7720 section 3.<br>
><br>
> Basically none of the root servers want to change
this and thus it's never going to change. DNS<br>
> will fail and select another to talk to, and things
will still work.<br>
<br>
At what point does HE just host a second C root and
announce the same IPv6s? Might irritate Cogent,<br>
but its not more "bad" than Cogent failing to uphold the
requirements for running a root server.<br>
<br>
Matt<br>
</div>
</span></font></div>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
www: grg.pw
email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:me@grg.pw">me@grg.pw</a>
mobile: +44 7716 604314 / +39 393 1049073</pre>
</body>
</html>