Re: IPv6 Cogent vs Hurricane Electric

[Constantine A. Murenin]

On 6 December 2015 at 18:24, Max Tulyev  wrote:
> On 04.12.15 01:19, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
>> On 1 December 2015 at 20:23, Max Tulyev  wrote:
>>> I have to change at least one of my uplinks because of it, which one is
>>> better to drop, HE or Cogent?
>>>
>>
>> Question: Why would you have to drop one of them? You have no problem if
>> you have both.
>
> Because of money, isn't it? I don't want to pay twice!
>
>> Even in the case of a link failure to one of them, you will likely not see
>> a big impact since everyone else also keeps multiple transits. You will
>> only have trouble with people that are single homed Cogent or HE, in which
>> case it is more them having a problem than you.
>
> As I fully implement IPv6 on my net, I got a HUGE impact already. That's
> the problem.
>
> So as this is not a bug, but a long time story - I relized for me as a
> cutomer connectivity from both Hurricane Electric and Cogent is a crap.
> So people should avoid both, and buy for example from Level3 and NTT,
> which do not have such problem and do not sell me partial connectivity
> without any warning before signing the contract.


I agree with your conclusion, however, your premise is not correct —
technically, HE is /not/ requiring you to purchase IPv6 from them; in
fact, they're rather openly giving away IPv6, including IPv6 transit,
away for free.

My understanding is that this includes both the tunnels (including
BGP) and the on-premise connectivity options.

So, feel free to ask for your money back from HE, and try that with Cogent, too!

C.


>
> I'm just a IP transit customer, and I don't give a something for that
> wars who is the real Tier1. I just want a working service for my money
> instead of answering a hundreds calls from my subscribers!

Re: IPv6 Cogent vs Hurricane Electric

[Jared Mauch]

> On Dec 6, 2015, at 2:56 AM, William Herrin  wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 11:49 PM, Owen DeLong  wrote:
>> Where the definition of Full Table is everything that isn’t exclusively 
>> behind Cogent.
> 
> I thought that was a full table in IPv4 as well?

The disjoint is IPv4 they can reach each other, but the relationships that 
exist for IPv4 aren’t all dual-stacked with congruent policies.

As with all things, I suspect this has more to do with “market optics” vs 
what’s best for the network(s) involved.

my take: I don’t think there are a lot of actual missing bits as a result of 
this.

- Jared

Re: IPv6 Cogent vs Hurricane Electric

[William Herrin]

On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 4:08 AM, Jared Mauch  wrote:
>> On Dec 6, 2015, at 2:56 AM, William Herrin  wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 11:49 PM, Owen DeLong  wrote:
>>> Where the definition of Full Table is everything that isn’t exclusively 
>>> behind Cogent.
>> I thought that was a full table in IPv4 as well?
>
> The disjoint is IPv4 they can reach each other, but the relationships that 
> exist for IPv4 aren’t all dual-stacked with congruent policies.

Hi Jared,

I was being sarcastic. I would never accept Cogent as my sole service
provider because they have a history of getting in to arguments which
leave their customers with only a partial view of the Internet. In
IPv6 -AND- IPv4. As far as I'm concerned, anyone exclusively on Cogent
isn't fully on the Internet and it's not my problem to get them there.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: 

Re: IPv6 Cogent vs Hurricane Electric

[joel jaeggli]

On 12/5/15 9:37 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 
>> On Dec 4, 2015, at 17:43 , Randy Bush  wrote:
>>
>>> Or, if you feel that Cogent's stubborn insistence on partitioning the
>>> global v6 internet
>>
>> if A does not peer with B,
>> then for all A and B
>> they are evil partitioners?
>>
>> can we lower the rhetoric?
>>
>> randy
> 
> Does that remain true for values of A where A is willing to peer with
> B, but B refuses to peer with A?

These are (mostly) reasonable business decisions engaged by (mostly)
reasonable actors.  both providers have tools available to them to
address the partition unilaterally as one of them does in ipv4  where
they so inclined.

Neither provider has significant numbers of single homed eyeballs
marooned behind them which would be bad.

> Owen
> 




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: IPv6 Cogent vs Hurricane Electric

[Matthew Petach]

On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Max Tulyev  wrote:
> On 04.12.15 01:19, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
>> On 1 December 2015 at 20:23, Max Tulyev  wrote:
>>> I have to change at least one of my uplinks because of it, which one is
>>> better to drop, HE or Cogent?
>>
>> Question: Why would you have to drop one of them? You have no problem if
>> you have both.
>
> Because of money, isn't it? I don't want to pay twice!

Completely makes sense--you want to get the
most value possible for the dollars you spend,
which means you want to choose upstream
providers that give you the most complete
view of the internet possible.

> So as this is not a bug, but a long time story - I relized for me as a
> cutomer connectivity from both Hurricane Electric and Cogent is a crap.
> So people should avoid both, and buy for example from Level3 and NTT,
> which do not have such problem and do not sell me partial connectivity
> without any warning before signing the contract.
>
> I'm just a IP transit customer, and I don't give a something for that
> wars who is the real Tier1. I just want a working service for my money
> instead of answering a hundreds calls from my subscribers!

So, for you, the choice is going to come
down to a comparison of how much each
provider charges vs how much of a headache
they're creating for you in terms of partial
reachability problems.  While bigger entities
like Level 3 and NTT will give you fewer reachability
headaches, they're also likely to charge more; and
you don't want to put all your eggs in one basket.

So, hypothetically speaking, if Level3 and NTT
both charge $2/mb/s/month, and Cogent and
HE charge $0.75/mb/s/month, you might
find that you get a more cost-effective
blend by getting 3 circuits, one each
from Level3 OR NTT, and Cogent,
and HE, for a total cost of $2+$0.75+$0.75,
or $3.50, instead of the other option
of buying two circuits, one each
from Level3 and NTT, which would
be $2+$2, or $4.

Yes, I realize this is completely contrived
hypothetical set of prices, but the point is
only you have the knowledge of how much
each provider is charging you; take that
information, do a few searches in your
favorite search engine for "$PROVIDER
peering dispute", and see which providers
have the best and worst histories as far
as getting into peering disputes, and then
choose accordingly.

It would be nice if there were a rating
system for ISPs that would make it
easier for smaller companies to know
if they were buying from an "A" rated
ISP vs a "C" or "D" rated ISP, somewhat
like restaurants that have to post their
department of health scores visibly.
However, without any overseeing entity
that would provide such a rating service,
for now it's up to each buyer to do their
own research to decide which ISPs are
safer to work with, and which ones are
riskier.

Best of luck making the right choices!

Thanks!

Matt

Re: IPv6 Cogent vs Hurricane Electric

[Max Tulyev]

On 04.12.15 01:19, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
> On 1 December 2015 at 20:23, Max Tulyev  wrote:
>> I have to change at least one of my uplinks because of it, which one is
>> better to drop, HE or Cogent?
>>
> 
> Question: Why would you have to drop one of them? You have no problem if
> you have both.

Because of money, isn't it? I don't want to pay twice!

> Even in the case of a link failure to one of them, you will likely not see
> a big impact since everyone else also keeps multiple transits. You will
> only have trouble with people that are single homed Cogent or HE, in which
> case it is more them having a problem than you.

As I fully implement IPv6 on my net, I got a HUGE impact already. That's
the problem.

So as this is not a bug, but a long time story - I relized for me as a
cutomer connectivity from both Hurricane Electric and Cogent is a crap.
So people should avoid both, and buy for example from Level3 and NTT,
which do not have such problem and do not sell me partial connectivity
without any warning before signing the contract.

I'm just a IP transit customer, and I don't give a something for that
wars who is the real Tier1. I just want a working service for my money
instead of answering a hundreds calls from my subscribers!

Re: IPv6 Cogent vs Hurricane Electric

[Baldur Norddahl]

On 7 December 2015 at 01:54, Matthew Petach  wrote:

> So, hypothetically speaking, if Level3 and NTT
> both charge $2/mb/s/month, and Cogent and
> HE charge $0.75/mb/s/month, you might
> find that you get a more cost-effective
> blend by getting 3 circuits, one each
> from Level3 OR NTT, and Cogent,
> and HE, for a total cost of $2+$0.75+$0.75,
> or $3.50, instead of the other option
> of buying two circuits, one each
> from Level3 and NTT, which would
> be $2+$2, or $4.
>

Or you could buy from some so called "tier 2" or "tier 3" providers
instead. Say the world has 6 tier 1 providers called A, B, C, D, E and F.
Ideally you would get the best connectivity (the most direct routes) by
buying from two tier 2, one which has A, B and C as uplink and the other
has D, E and F.

In my experience the connectivity between tier 1 providers can be really
bad. If I use only my Cogent transit, some traffic will go from Europe to
New York and back again. The performance is so bad that my customers will
start calling me and claim the network is down. Just looking at the routing
table will not tell you the full story here.

Back to the real world: Cogent is good for dirt cheap transit, HE is good
for their massive peering and then you also take in someone local to cover
all your bases.

Regards,

Baldur

Re: IPv6 Cogent vs Hurricane Electric

[Marty Strong via NANOG]

I think what’s stopping this from being a bigger issue is that neither network 
has many (if any) single-homed customers that don’t connect on IPv4, which as 
mentioned previously isn’t partitioned. If there were many IPv6 only eyeballs 
single-homed behind each network then it would be a bigger issue.

Regards,
Marty Strong
--
CloudFlare - AS13335
Network Engineer
ma...@cloudflare.com
+44 7584 906 055
smartflare (Skype)

http://www.peeringdb.com/view.php?asn=13335

> On 6 Dec 2015, at 18:38, joel jaeggli  wrote:
> 
> On 12/5/15 9:37 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> 
>>> On Dec 4, 2015, at 17:43 , Randy Bush  wrote:
>>> 
 Or, if you feel that Cogent's stubborn insistence on partitioning the
 global v6 internet
>>> 
>>> if A does not peer with B,
>>> then for all A and B
>>> they are evil partitioners?
>>> 
>>> can we lower the rhetoric?
>>> 
>>> randy
>> 
>> Does that remain true for values of A where A is willing to peer with
>> B, but B refuses to peer with A?
> 
> These are (mostly) reasonable business decisions engaged by (mostly)
> reasonable actors.  both providers have tools available to them to
> address the partition unilaterally as one of them does in ipv4  where
> they so inclined.
> 
> Neither provider has significant numbers of single homed eyeballs
> marooned behind them which would be bad.
> 
>> Owen
>> 
> 
> 

Re: IPv6 Cogent vs Hurricane Electric

[William Herrin]

On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 11:49 PM, Owen DeLong  wrote:
> Where the definition of Full Table is everything that isn’t exclusively 
> behind Cogent.

I thought that was a full table in IPv4 as well?

-Bill

-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: 

Re: IPv6 Cogent vs Hurricane Electric

[Owen DeLong]

Admittedly, I may be biased, but even I am not sure in which direction.

HE and Cogent have been in a pissing match over peering for a very long time.

HE refuses to pay transit (which to me seems reasonable).
Cogent refuses to peer with HE or pay transit. (The latter seeming reasonable
to me, the former not so much).

The dispute is bad for the internet.
Paying Cogent would also, IMHO, be bad for the internet.

If it were me, I would drop Cogent, let them know why you are dropping them,
and find a provider that has transit to both Cogent and HE as a replacement.

YMMV.

Owen

The following may also be of interest from the archives:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CObnXjmDtg

> On Dec 1, 2015, at 11:23 , Max Tulyev  wrote:
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> we got an issue today that announces from Cogent don't reach Hurricane
> Electric. HE support said that's a feature, not a bug.
> 
> So we have splitted Internet again?
> 
> I have to change at least one of my uplinks because of it, which one is
> better to drop, HE or Cogent?

Re: IPv6 Cogent vs Hurricane Electric

[Owen DeLong]

> On Dec 2, 2015, at 17:38 , Ryan Rawdon  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Dec 1, 2015, at 1:23 PM, Max Tulyev  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi All,
>> 
>> we got an issue today that announces from Cogent don't reach Hurricane
>> Electric. HE support said that's a feature, not a bug.
>> 
>> So we have splitted Internet again?
>> 
>> I have to change at least one of my uplinks because of it, which one is
>> better to drop, HE or Cogent?
> 
> 
> There is another option, instead of choosing just one - perhaps establish a 
> tunnel to HE from a L3 device that can do the tunneling in hardware?  You can 
> get a HE tunnel for free, and they will speak BGP to you.
> 
> Alternatively, if you are on any IXes where HE is present - they will not 
> only peer with you for v6, but announce a full table if you want it. 

Where the definition of Full Table is everything that isn’t exclusively behind 
Cogent.

Owen

Re: IPv6 Cogent vs Hurricane Electric

[Owen DeLong]

> On Dec 4, 2015, at 17:43 , Randy Bush  wrote:
> 
>> Or, if you feel that Cogent's stubborn insistence on partitioning the
>> global v6 internet
> 
> if A does not peer with B,
> then for all A and B
> they are evil partitioners?
> 
> can we lower the rhetoric?
> 
> randy

Does that remain true for values of A where A is willing to peer with
B, but B refuses to peer with A?

Owen

Re: IPv6 Cogent vs Hurricane Electric

[Paul WALL]

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 7:34 PM, Jeff Walter  wrote:
> That cake will haunt NANOG until the end of time.
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Alarig Le Lay  wrote:
>
>> On Tue Dec  1 14:39:14 2015, Andrew Kirch wrote:
>> > Might I suggest cake pleas?
>>
>> You mean
>>
>> http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Hurricane-Cake.jpg
>> ?
>>


i mean

"Different companies have different personalities, and the vast
majority work through their relationships fine in the interest of the
public and the industry.  But there are always a few companies that
like to act out on the public stage to achieve their business
objectives."

  --Mike Leber, 6/29/15 Telecom Ramblings

along with the bad spelling, we have short memories.  peering is about
mutual benefits. when benefits aren't there peering doesn't happen.
going to nanog and yelling about peering by saying that you're a
victim isn't a mutual benefit last i checked. their lack of peering
doesn't demand another moment of our attention. choose wisely.

Drive slow,
Paul WALL

Re: IPv6 Cogent vs Hurricane Electric

[Matthew Petach]

On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 5:43 PM, Randy Bush  wrote:
>> Or, if you feel that Cogent's stubborn insistence on partitioning the
>> global v6 internet
>
> if A does not peer with B,
> then for all A and B
> they are evil partitioners?
>
> can we lower the rhetoric?
>
> randy
>



I thought we already had this conversation
a few years ago, but my memory is short,
so we can have it again.   ^_^;

No, it's not an issue of A not peering
with B, it's A selling "internet transit"
for a known subset of the internet
rather than the whole kit and kaboodle.

I rather think that if you're going to put
a sign out saying "we sell internet transit",
it *is* incumbent on you to make a best
effort to ensure you have as complete
a copy of the full routing table as possible;
otherwise, it's potentially a fraudulent claim.
At least, that's what it would be in any other
industry if you sold something under a particular
name while knowing the whole time it didn't
fit the definition of the product.

I know in the service station industry,
I'd get in a lot of trouble if I sold "premium
unleaded gasoline" that was really just the
same as the "regular unleaded" with a
different label.  It's fortunate that we're
not a regulated industry, so there's nobody
checking up on us to make sure that if
we sell "internet transit", it's not really
"internet transit, minus level3, sprint, ATT,
and a bunch of other networks that won't
get your prefixes from me".

It all boils down to 'caveat emptor' -- not all
uses of the word "internet transit" mean the
same thing--check carefully when buying, and
make sure you make informed decisions.

Matt
(now with 50% less rhetoric!)

Re: IPv6 Cogent vs Hurricane Electric

[Paul S.]

It is worth noting that HE indeed provides the full view, it's the other 
side that has an issue.


(Since HE isn't really a tier 1, their transit relationships with Telia 
and other carriers "save" them)


Cogent -> HE dies with unreachable on the first hop though, and that's 
an issue for Cogent customers.


On 12/5/2015 11:09 AM, Baldur Norddahl wrote:

On 5 December 2015 at 02:43, Randy Bush  wrote:


Or, if you feel that Cogent's stubborn insistence on partitioning the
global v6 internet

if A does not peer with B,
then for all A and B
they are evil partitioners?

can we lower the rhetoric?


They both loses on this. In fact anyone claiming tier 1 status loses here,
because this illustrates why you can never be single homed on a tier 1
network. These guys simply do not have the full internet.

Regards,

Baldur

Re: IPv6 Cogent vs Hurricane Electric

[Randy Bush]

> No, it's not an issue of A not peering
> with B, it's A selling "internet transit"
> for a known subset of the internet
> rather than the whole kit and kaboodle.

right.  then hurricane and cogent should both
make clear that they do not provide ipv6 transit
to the entire internet.

randy

Re: IPv6 Cogent vs Hurricane Electric

[Randy Bush]

> Or, if you feel that Cogent's stubborn insistence on partitioning the
> global v6 internet

if A does not peer with B,
then for all A and B
they are evil partitioners?

can we lower the rhetoric?

randy

Re: IPv6 Cogent vs Hurricane Electric

[Paul S.]

Whoops, spoke too soon.

While HE indeed seems to use the transits to reach Cogent, they only do 
this over v4.


IPv6 packets are indeed dropped on the first border. Sorry for the noise.

core1.fmt1.he.net> traceroute ipv6 2001:550:2:d::a:2 numericTarget 
2001:550:2:d::a:2

Hop Start   1
Hop End 30

Hop Packet 1Packet 2Packet 3Hostname
1   *   *   *   ?
2   *   *   *   ?
3   *   *   *   ?
4   *   *   *   ?
IP: Errno(8) Trace Route Failed, no response from target node.




On 12/5/2015 11:43 AM, Paul S. wrote:
It is worth noting that HE indeed provides the full view, it's the 
other side that has an issue.


(Since HE isn't really a tier 1, their transit relationships with 
Telia and other carriers "save" them)


Cogent -> HE dies with unreachable on the first hop though, and that's 
an issue for Cogent customers.


On 12/5/2015 11:09 AM, Baldur Norddahl wrote:

On 5 December 2015 at 02:43, Randy Bush  wrote:


Or, if you feel that Cogent's stubborn insistence on partitioning the
global v6 internet

if A does not peer with B,
then for all A and B
they are evil partitioners?

can we lower the rhetoric?

They both loses on this. In fact anyone claiming tier 1 status loses 
here,

because this illustrates why you can never be single homed on a tier 1
network. These guys simply do not have the full internet.

Regards,

Baldur

Re: IPv6 Cogent vs Hurricane Electric

[William Herrin]

On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 8:43 PM, Randy Bush  wrote:
>> Or, if you feel that Cogent's stubborn insistence on partitioning the
>> global v6 internet
>
> if A does not peer with B,
> then for all A and B
> they are evil partitioners?
>
> can we lower the rhetoric?

It's Cogent. Seriously. They earned their disrespect.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: 

Re: IPv6 Cogent vs Hurricane Electric

[Baldur Norddahl]

On 5 December 2015 at 02:43, Randy Bush  wrote:

> > Or, if you feel that Cogent's stubborn insistence on partitioning the
> > global v6 internet
>
> if A does not peer with B,
> then for all A and B
> they are evil partitioners?
>
> can we lower the rhetoric?
>

They both loses on this. In fact anyone claiming tier 1 status loses here,
because this illustrates why you can never be single homed on a tier 1
network. These guys simply do not have the full internet.

Regards,

Baldur

Re: IPv6 Cogent vs Hurricane Electric

[Josh Reynolds]

Is "tier" even a thing anymore?
On Dec 4, 2015 8:46 PM, "Paul S."  wrote:

> It is worth noting that HE indeed provides the full view, it's the other
> side that has an issue.
>
> (Since HE isn't really a tier 1, their transit relationships with Telia
> and other carriers "save" them)
>
> Cogent -> HE dies with unreachable on the first hop though, and that's an
> issue for Cogent customers.
>
> On 12/5/2015 11:09 AM, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
>
>> On 5 December 2015 at 02:43, Randy Bush  wrote:
>>
>> Or, if you feel that Cogent's stubborn insistence on partitioning the
 global v6 internet

>>> if A does not peer with B,
>>> then for all A and B
>>> they are evil partitioners?
>>>
>>> can we lower the rhetoric?
>>>
>>> They both loses on this. In fact anyone claiming tier 1 status loses
>> here,
>> because this illustrates why you can never be single homed on a tier 1
>> network. These guys simply do not have the full internet.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Baldur
>>
>
>

Re: IPv6 Cogent vs Hurricane Electric

[Jared Geiger]

Wouldn't this be a Net Neutrality issue now or would it fall on HE for not
willing to buy transit to Cogent IPv6?

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Ryan Rawdon  wrote:

>
> > On Dec 1, 2015, at 1:23 PM, Max Tulyev  wrote:
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > we got an issue today that announces from Cogent don't reach Hurricane
> > Electric. HE support said that's a feature, not a bug.
> >
> > So we have splitted Internet again?
> >
> > I have to change at least one of my uplinks because of it, which one is
> > better to drop, HE or Cogent?
>
>
> There is another option, instead of choosing just one - perhaps establish
> a tunnel to HE from a L3 device that can do the tunneling in hardware?  You
> can get a HE tunnel for free, and they will speak BGP to you.
>
> Alternatively, if you are on any IXes where HE is present - they will not
> only peer with you for v6, but announce a full table if you want it.

Re: IPv6 Cogent vs Hurricane Electric

[William Herrin]

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Jared Geiger  wrote:
> Wouldn't this be a Net Neutrality issue now or would it fall on HE for not
> willing to buy transit to Cogent IPv6?

Wouldn't it fall on Cogent for being unwilling to buy transit from HE?
HE is the IPv6 leader in the game.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: 

Re: IPv6 Cogent vs Hurricane Electric

[Jeff Walter]

As funny as that would be, it would never happen. Cogent thinks they're the
biggest. HE is the biggest (last I checked). HE wants to peer. Cogent wants
HE to pay for transit. Cake reference. Still partitioned.

How do you get them connected? I hate to say it, but it would take a major
shift within Cogent. In the meantime your best option to see the whole IPv6
internet is to pay Cogent and to get free v6 transit with HE over an
exchange or tunnel.

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 12:51 PM, William Herrin  wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Jared Geiger  wrote:
> > Wouldn't this be a Net Neutrality issue now or would it fall on HE for
> not
> > willing to buy transit to Cogent IPv6?
>
> Wouldn't it fall on Cogent for being unwilling to buy transit from HE?
> HE is the IPv6 leader in the game.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
>
> --
> William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
> Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: 
>

Re: IPv6 Cogent vs Hurricane Electric

[Baldur Norddahl]

On 1 December 2015 at 20:23, Max Tulyev  wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> we got an issue today that announces from Cogent don't reach Hurricane
> Electric. HE support said that's a feature, not a bug.
>
> So we have splitted Internet again?
>
> I have to change at least one of my uplinks because of it, which one is
> better to drop, HE or Cogent?
>

Question: Why would you have to drop one of them? You have no problem if
you have both.

Even in the case of a link failure to one of them, you will likely not see
a big impact since everyone else also keeps multiple transits. You will
only have trouble with people that are single homed Cogent or HE, in which
case it is more them having a problem than you.

Regards,

Baldur

Re: IPv6 Cogent vs Hurricane Electric

[Matthew Petach]

Or, if you feel that Cogent's stubborn insistence on
partitioning the global v6 internet shouldn't be rewarded
with money, pay someone *other* than cogent for
IPv6 transit and also connect to HE.net; that way
you still have access to cogent routes, but you also
send a subtle economic nudge that says "hey cogent--
trying to get into the tier 1 club by partitioning the
internet isn't a good path for long-term sucess".

Note that this is purely my own opinion, not necessarily
that of my employer, my friends, my family, or even my
cat.  I asked my cat about cogent IPv6, and all I got was
a ghostly hairball as a reply[0].

Matt


[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kEME0CxmtY



On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Baldur Norddahl
 wrote:
> On 1 December 2015 at 20:23, Max Tulyev  wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> we got an issue today that announces from Cogent don't reach Hurricane
>> Electric. HE support said that's a feature, not a bug.
>>
>> So we have splitted Internet again?
>>
>> I have to change at least one of my uplinks because of it, which one is
>> better to drop, HE or Cogent?
>>
>
> Question: Why would you have to drop one of them? You have no problem if
> you have both.
>
> Even in the case of a link failure to one of them, you will likely not see
> a big impact since everyone else also keeps multiple transits. You will
> only have trouble with people that are single homed Cogent or HE, in which
> case it is more them having a problem than you.
>
> Regards,
>
> Baldur
>

Re: IPv6 Cogent vs Hurricane Electric

[Matt Palmer]

On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 04:58:08PM -0800, Matthew Petach wrote:
> Or, if you feel that Cogent's stubborn insistence on partitioning the
> global v6 internet shouldn't be rewarded with money, pay someone *other*
> than cogent for IPv6 transit and also connect to HE.net; that way you
> still have access to cogent routes, but you also send a subtle economic
> nudge that says "hey cogent-- trying to get into the tier 1 club by
> partitioning the internet isn't a good path for long-term sucess".

Sadly, anyone you pay for transit to Cogent routes is going to be giving
Cogent their cut, so it's not a perfect signal to Cogent that we'd prefer to
have one IPv6ternet rather than two.  At the very least, configure the
routers to that any routes you learn via HE are preferenced, and announce
your routes as preferring HE, so that Cogent gets as little of the traffic
as possible.

- Matt

Re: IPv6 Cogent vs Hurricane Electric

[Jared Mauch]

> On Dec 2, 2015, at 8:38 PM, Ryan Rawdon  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Dec 1, 2015, at 1:23 PM, Max Tulyev  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi All,
>> 
>> we got an issue today that announces from Cogent don't reach Hurricane
>> Electric. HE support said that's a feature, not a bug.
>> 
>> So we have splitted Internet again?
>> 
>> I have to change at least one of my uplinks because of it, which one is
>> better to drop, HE or Cogent?
> 
> 
> There is another option, instead of choosing just one - perhaps establish a 
> tunnel to HE from a L3 device that can do the tunneling in hardware?  You can 
> get a HE tunnel for free, and they will speak BGP to you.
> 
> Alternatively, if you are on any IXes where HE is present - they will not 
> only peer with you for v6, but announce a full table if you want it.

Looking at the most recent IPv6 data available at CAIDA you can see the 
customer cone size:

http://as-rank.caida.org/?data-selected-id=15

Be careful as the tool seems fragile when switching from the 2014-09-01 IPv6 
dataset and trying to sort by options, it seems to switch back to IPv4 silently.

Prefixes and/or AS’es in customer cone are likely the best measure, but even 
there Cogent is 2x HE.net.  The only place where he.net leads is the transit 
degree with is likely distorted because of what you mention above, full tables, 
etc.

I find this data interesting and wish there was something more recent than 
2014-09-01 to test with.  Perhaps I could do something with all these atlas 
credits I have.  (or someone could use them for me).

- Jared

Re: IPv6 Cogent vs Hurricane Electric

[Jared Mauch]

> On Dec 3, 2015, at 7:58 PM, Matthew Petach  wrote:
> 
> Or, if you feel that Cogent's stubborn insistence on
> partitioning the global v6 internet shouldn't be rewarded
> with money, pay someone *other* than cogent for
> IPv6 transit and also connect to HE.net; that way
> you still have access to cogent routes, but you also
> send a subtle economic nudge that says "hey cogent--
> trying to get into the tier 1 club by partitioning the
> internet isn't a good path for long-term sucess".
> 
> Note that this is purely my own opinion, not necessarily
> that of my employer, my friends, my family, or even my
> cat.  I asked my cat about cogent IPv6, and all I got was
> a ghostly hairball as a reply[0].

I would say that if you buy transit for IPv4, you should have congruent
relationship with IPv6 as well.  A network that does one and not the
other is clearly obvious to a skilled engineer.

Partitioning networks is bad, and I’d like to see this resolved myself.

- Jared

Re: IPv6 Cogent vs Hurricane Electric

[Matthew Petach]

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Jared Mauch  wrote:
>
> Looking at the most recent IPv6 data available at CAIDA you can see the 
> customer cone size:
>
> http://as-rank.caida.org/?data-selected-id=15
>
> Be careful as the tool seems fragile when switching from the 2014-09-01 IPv6 
> dataset and trying to sort by options, it seems to switch back to IPv4 
> silently.
>
> Prefixes and/or AS’es in customer cone are likely the best measure, but even 
> there Cogent is 2x HE.net.  The only place where he.net leads is the transit 
> degree with is likely distorted because of what you mention above, full 
> tables, etc.
>
> I find this data interesting and wish there was something more recent than 
> 2014-09-01 to test with.  Perhaps I could do something with all these atlas 
> credits I have.  (or someone could use them for me).
>
> - Jared


Note their analysis is horribly flawed,
as it suffers from a 32-bit limitation
for counting IPv6 addresses.

I'd love to see them fix their code
and then re-run the analysis.

Matt

Re: IPv6 Cogent vs Hurricane Electric

[Ryan Rawdon]

> On Dec 1, 2015, at 1:23 PM, Max Tulyev  wrote:
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> we got an issue today that announces from Cogent don't reach Hurricane
> Electric. HE support said that's a feature, not a bug.
> 
> So we have splitted Internet again?
> 
> I have to change at least one of my uplinks because of it, which one is
> better to drop, HE or Cogent?


There is another option, instead of choosing just one - perhaps establish a 
tunnel to HE from a L3 device that can do the tunneling in hardware?  You can 
get a HE tunnel for free, and they will speak BGP to you.

Alternatively, if you are on any IXes where HE is present - they will not only 
peer with you for v6, but announce a full table if you want it. 

Re: IPv6 Cogent vs Hurricane Electric

[Alarig Le Lay]

On Tue Dec  1 14:39:14 2015, Andrew Kirch wrote:
> Might I suggest cake pleas?

You mean
http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Hurricane-Cake.jpg
 ?

-- 
Alarig


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: IPv6 Cogent vs Hurricane Electric

[Jeff Walter]

That cake will haunt NANOG until the end of time.

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Alarig Le Lay  wrote:

> On Tue Dec  1 14:39:14 2015, Andrew Kirch wrote:
> > Might I suggest cake pleas?
>
> You mean
>
> http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Hurricane-Cake.jpg
> ?
>
> --
> Alarig
>

IPv6 Cogent vs Hurricane Electric

[Max Tulyev]

Hi All,

we got an issue today that announces from Cogent don't reach Hurricane
Electric. HE support said that's a feature, not a bug.

So we have splitted Internet again?

I have to change at least one of my uplinks because of it, which one is
better to drop, HE or Cogent?

Re: IPv6 Cogent vs Hurricane Electric

[Christopher Morrow]

hasn't this been the case for ~10 yrs now?

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Max Tulyev  wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> we got an issue today that announces from Cogent don't reach Hurricane
> Electric. HE support said that's a feature, not a bug.
>
> So we have splitted Internet again?
>
> I have to change at least one of my uplinks because of it, which one is
> better to drop, HE or Cogent?

Re: IPv6 Cogent vs Hurricane Electric

[Max Tulyev]

Just hit it for first time...

Is there any other similar splits in IPv6 world?

On 01.12.15 21:33, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> hasn't this been the case for ~10 yrs now?
> 
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Max Tulyev  wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> we got an issue today that announces from Cogent don't reach Hurricane
>> Electric. HE support said that's a feature, not a bug.
>>
>> So we have splitted Internet again?
>>
>> I have to change at least one of my uplinks because of it, which one is
>> better to drop, HE or Cogent?
> 

Re: IPv6 Cogent vs Hurricane Electric

[Job Snijders]

On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 09:23:08PM +0200, Max Tulyev wrote:
> we got an issue today that announces from Cogent don't reach Hurricane
> Electric. HE support said that's a feature, not a bug.
> 
> So we have splitted Internet again?

Was there ever an adjacency between 6939 and 174 in the IPv6 DFZ?
Maybe bgpmon or dyn can comment on information collected over the last
few years. 

> I have to change at least one of my uplinks because of it, which one
> is better to drop, HE or Cogent?

I recommend You base your decision on metrics relevant to your business,
such as network performance, positive/negative experiences with their
NOC, support from your account manager, pricing, how easy it was to
reach them (local tail needed or not), etc.

Kind regards,

Job

Re: IPv6 Cogent vs Hurricane Electric

[Andrew Kirch]

Might I suggest cake pleas?

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015, Christopher Morrow 
wrote:

> hasn't this been the case for ~10 yrs now?
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Max Tulyev  > wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > we got an issue today that announces from Cogent don't reach Hurricane
> > Electric. HE support said that's a feature, not a bug.
> >
> > So we have splitted Internet again?
> >
> > I have to change at least one of my uplinks because of it, which one is
> > better to drop, HE or Cogent?
>