Re: Did IPv6 between HE and Google ever get resolved?
On 1/4/19 11:25 pm, Robert Webb wrote:
> Maybe I am just a tad bit illiterate on the the way a word on that cake
> can be spelled/used, but maybe Cogent doesn't want to peer with a
> provider that cannot spell :-\
I like that theory. Explains why they don't peer with Google ("googol"
being the correct spelling of the number) too.
Re: Did IPv6 between HE and Google ever get resolved?
Maybe I am just a tad bit illiterate on the the way a word on that cake can be spelled/used, but maybe Cogent doesn't want to peer with a provider that cannot spell :-\ plea /plē/ *noun* plural noun: *pleas* please /plēz/ *adverb* 1. 1. used in polite requests or questions. "please address letters to the Editor" On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 9:59 PM Matthew Petach wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 6:40 PM Jay Hennigan wrote: > >> Perhaps you should bake them a cake. :-) >> > > The cake was delicious and moist > > https://www.flickr.com/photos/mpetach/4031434206 > > "I'd like to buy a vowel. Can I get an 'e', pleas?" ^_^;; > >
Re: Did IPv6 between HE and Google ever get resolved?
Send them another cake… Owen > On Mar 31, 2019, at 18:19 , Mike Leber 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 >> 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 6939 >> >> 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 >
Re: Did IPv6 between HE and Google ever get resolved?
On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 6:40 PM Jay Hennigan wrote: > Perhaps you should bake them a cake. :-) > The cake was delicious and moist https://www.flickr.com/photos/mpetach/4031434206 "I'd like to buy a vowel. Can I get an 'e', pleas?" ^_^;;
Re: Did IPv6 between HE and Google ever get resolved?
> Are you saying that they refused to peer - and then failed at refusing? :) luckily, none of the rest of us have bugs. whew!
Re: Did IPv6 between HE and Google ever get resolved?
On 3/31/19 6:19 PM, Mike Leber 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) Perhaps you should bake them a cake. :-) -- Jay Hennigan - j...@west.net Network Engineering - CCIE #7880 503 897-8550 - WB6RDV
Re: Did IPv6 between HE and Google ever get resolved?
On 3/31/19 8:21 PM, Valdis Klētnieks wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2019 18:10:09 -0700, Christopher Morrow said: Apologies, I do actually see a path from 174 -> 6939 (well 28 paths): 174 6939 it's clearly not all of HE -> Cogent, and it's clearly not supposed to be working (I would think). Wait, what? Are you saying that they refused to peer - and then failed at refusing? :) Let them eat cake.
Re: Did IPv6 between HE and Google ever get resolved?
On Sun, 31 Mar 2019 18:10:09 -0700, Christopher Morrow said: > Apologies, I do actually see a path from 174 -> 6939 (well 28 paths): > 174 6939 > > it's clearly not all of HE -> Cogent, and it's clearly not supposed to > be working (I would think). Wait, what? Are you saying that they refused to peer - and then failed at refusing? :)
Re: Did IPv6 between HE and Google ever get resolved?
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 > 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 6939 > > 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 >>>
Re: Did IPv6 between HE and Google ever get resolved?
On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 6:07 PM Christopher Morrow 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$" > ".* 6939 .*" > > routes in the bgp stream :( Apologies, I do actually see a path from 174 -> 6939 (well 28 paths): 174 6939 it's clearly not all of HE -> Cogent, and it's clearly not supposed to be working (I would think). -chris > > -chris > > >> > >> Matt > >> > > > > Ah. Sorry, the changed subject line didn't thread in with this, > > so this showed up as an unreplied singleton in my inbox. > > > > Apologies for the duplicated response; at least this won't > > be a lonely singleton in anyone else's inbox now. ^_^; > > > > Matt > >
Re: Did IPv6 between HE and Google ever get resolved?
On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 4:37 AM Matthew Petach wrote: > > > > On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 4:33 AM Matthew Petach wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 12:40 PM David Hubbard >> wrote: >>> >>> Hey all, I’ve been having bad luck searching around, but did IPv6 transit >>> between HE and google ever get resolved? Ironically, I can now get to them >>> cheaply from a location we currently have equipment that has been >>> Cogent-only, so if it fixes the IPv6 issue I’d like to make the move. >>> Anyone peer with HE in general and want to share their experience offlist? >>> With the price, if they’re a good option, I’d consider rolling them in to >>> other locations where we have redundancy already, so the v6 isn’t as big a >>> deal there. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> >> >> >> I wasn't aware of any issues between HE.net and Google; >> are you sure you don't mean HE.net and Cogent? thread subject still says 'google and he', I don't think there's ever been problems between google/he for v6. I think there are some issues from cogent - > he over v6 :( Looking at a sample AS6939 customer link I see no: ".* 174$" ".* 174 .*$" routes in the bgp stream :( Looking at a AS174 customer link session I see no: ".* 6939$" ".* 6939 .*" routes in the bgp stream :( -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 >
Re: Did IPv6 between HE and Google ever get resolved?
On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 4:33 AM Matthew Petach wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 12:40 PM David Hubbard < > dhubb...@dino.hostasaurus.com> wrote: > >> Hey all, I’ve been having bad luck searching around, but did IPv6 transit >> between HE and google ever get resolved? Ironically, I can now get to them >> cheaply from a location we currently have equipment that has been >> Cogent-only, so if it fixes the IPv6 issue I’d like to make the move. >> Anyone peer with HE in general and want to share their experience offlist? >> With the price, if they’re a good option, I’d consider rolling them in to >> other locations where we have redundancy already, so the v6 isn’t as big a >> deal there. >> >> >> >> Thanks >> >> >> > > I wasn't aware of any issues between HE.net and Google; > are you sure you don't mean HE.net and Cogent? > > 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
Re: Did IPv6 between HE and Google ever get resolved?
On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 12:40 PM David Hubbard < dhubb...@dino.hostasaurus.com> wrote: > Hey all, I’ve been having bad luck searching around, but did IPv6 transit > between HE and google ever get resolved? Ironically, I can now get to them > cheaply from a location we currently have equipment that has been > Cogent-only, so if it fixes the IPv6 issue I’d like to make the move. > Anyone peer with HE in general and want to share their experience offlist? > With the price, if they’re a good option, I’d consider rolling them in to > other locations where we have redundancy already, so the v6 isn’t as big a > deal there. > > > > Thanks > > > I wasn't aware of any issues between HE.net and Google; are you sure you don't mean HE.net and Cogent? Matt
Re: Was wrong Re: Did IPv6 between HE and Google ever get resolved?
A careful observer will note multiple fractures/rifts in the ipv6 default-free zone. It’s not as meshed as ipv4, unfortunately. Kind regards, Job
RE: Was wrong Re: Did IPv6 between HE and Google ever get resolved?
On Fri, 29 Mar 2019, Aaron Gould wrote: Why does cogent seem like the commonality between those 2 that you mentioned :| Why do people think the policy as to whether or not they can peer or have to buy transit should be different for one address family vs the other? Why will some networks peer at an IX but refuse to make changes (like new port IPs or new ASN for the same organization they already peer with)? Regardless, this is why it pays to multi-home and peer as much as possible. If you directly peer with the networks one of your transit providers is in a pissing match with, the issue is easily ignored. -- Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route | therefore you are _ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_
RE: Was wrong Re: Did IPv6 between HE and Google ever get resolved?
Why does cogent seem like the commonality between those 2 that you mentioned :| - Aaron - "I think what you were remembering is Cogent/Google and Cogent/HE are both IPv6 issues where the parties can't agree on peering vs transit for the v6 relationship."
Re: Was wrong Re: Did IPv6 between HE and Google ever get resolved?
I think what you were remembering is Cogent/Google and Cogent/HE are both IPv6 issues where the parties can't agree on peering vs transit for the v6 relationship. On Thu, 28 Mar 2019, David Hubbard wrote: Oops, I was corrected that HE doesn’t have IPv6 issues with Google, not sure why I had that in my head. Cogent certainly does but something had me thinking there’s another big name that has the same problem. David From: NANOG on behalf of David Hubbard Date: Thursday, March 28, 2019 at 12:40 PM To: NANOG List Subject: Did IPv6 between HE and Google ever get resolved? Hey all, I’ve been having bad luck searching around, but did IPv6 transit between HE and google ever get resolved? Ironically, I can now get to them cheaply from a location we currently have equipment that has been Cogent-only, so if it fixes the IPv6 issue I’d like to make the move. Anyone peer with HE in general and want to share their experience offlist? With the price, if they’re a good option, I’d consider rolling them in to other locations where we have redundancy already, so the v6 isn’t as big a deal there. Thanks -- Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route | therefore you are _ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_
Was wrong Re: Did IPv6 between HE and Google ever get resolved?
Oops, I was corrected that HE doesn’t have IPv6 issues with Google, not sure why I had that in my head. Cogent certainly does but something had me thinking there’s another big name that has the same problem. David From: NANOG on behalf of David Hubbard Date: Thursday, March 28, 2019 at 12:40 PM To: NANOG List Subject: Did IPv6 between HE and Google ever get resolved? Hey all, I’ve been having bad luck searching around, but did IPv6 transit between HE and google ever get resolved? Ironically, I can now get to them cheaply from a location we currently have equipment that has been Cogent-only, so if it fixes the IPv6 issue I’d like to make the move. Anyone peer with HE in general and want to share their experience offlist? With the price, if they’re a good option, I’d consider rolling them in to other locations where we have redundancy already, so the v6 isn’t as big a deal there. Thanks
Did IPv6 between HE and Google ever get resolved?
Hey all, I’ve been having bad luck searching around, but did IPv6 transit between HE and google ever get resolved? Ironically, I can now get to them cheaply from a location we currently have equipment that has been Cogent-only, so if it fixes the IPv6 issue I’d like to make the move. Anyone peer with HE in general and want to share their experience offlist? With the price, if they’re a good option, I’d consider rolling them in to other locations where we have redundancy already, so the v6 isn’t as big a deal there. Thanks
