Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

[Alarig Le Lay]

On mer.  8 mars 09:29:11 2017, Marty Strong via NANOG wrote:
> I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s unwanted, where Telstra domestic is
> announcing to Telstra International, who in turn announces to Cogent.

I wouldn’t too, especially since I don’t see it anymore:
alarig@nominoe:~ % birdc6 show route for 2a00:1450:4001:811::2003
BIRD 1.5.0 ready.
2a00:1450:4001::/48 via 2a06:e040:3501:101:2::1 on em0.21 [bgp_quantic 
13:09:29] * (100) [AS15169i]
   via 2a00:5881:8100:ff00::142 on gre0 [bgp_arn_hwhost1 
2017-01-30] (50) [AS15169i]
   via 2a00:5884:ff::13 on gre1 [bgp_arn_hwhost2 2017-01-30] 
(50) [AS15169i]

And quantic now reaches them via HE.

-- 
alarig


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

[Marty Strong via NANOG]

I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s unwanted, where Telstra domestic is 
announcing to Telstra International, who in turn announces to Cogent.

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

https://www.peeringdb.com/asn/13335

> On 8 Mar 2017, at 07:18, Alarig Le Lay  wrote:
> 
> On sam. 25 févr. 09:49:56 2017, Aaron wrote:
>> Hi, I'm new to the nanog list, hope this isn't out of scope for what is
>> usually discussed here.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Cogent is telling me that I can't route through cogent to get to google ipv6
>> routes (particularly the well known dns addresses 2001:4860:4860::88xx)
>> because google decided not to advertise those route to one of their mutual
>> peers.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Anyone know anything about this ?  .and why it happened and when it will be
>> resolved ?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -Aaron
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Since this morning, I see again google routes from cogent:
> https://paste.swordarmor.fr/raw/wnFQ
> 
> But, with very bad latency. To go from Rennes (France) to Frankfurt
> (Germany), it transits via Sydney, and still thought other ASes:
> https://paste.swordarmor.fr/raw/PlSM
> 
> -- 
> alarig

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

[Alarig Le Lay]

On sam. 25 févr. 09:49:56 2017, Aaron wrote:
> Hi, I'm new to the nanog list, hope this isn't out of scope for what is
> usually discussed here.
> 
>  
> 
> Cogent is telling me that I can't route through cogent to get to google ipv6
> routes (particularly the well known dns addresses 2001:4860:4860::88xx)
> because google decided not to advertise those route to one of their mutual
> peers.
> 
>  
> 
> Anyone know anything about this ?  .and why it happened and when it will be
> resolved ?
> 
>  
> 
> -Aaron

Hi,

Since this morning, I see again google routes from cogent:
https://paste.swordarmor.fr/raw/wnFQ

But, with very bad latency. To go from Rennes (France) to Frankfurt
(Germany), it transits via Sydney, and still thought other ASes:
https://paste.swordarmor.fr/raw/PlSM

-- 
alarig


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

[joel jaeggli]

On 3/2/17 3:42 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
> Yes. Most providers can send you just their customer routes. If they send you 
> full routes you want to discriminate customer vs peer routes. This is 
> typically done with communities and is worthwhile as most people have 
> capacity on customer links but via peer it may not always be the case. 
>
> As is usual YMMV
It's relatively straight-forward to take a full table feed and accept
into your fib only the routes you want from that table.

I presented on variant of that based on my need for partial fib peering
switches; but other reasons for doing so exist, e.g. defailt +
te-overrides, prefix filters weighted by per prefix utilization and so on.

In general I'd get the full table and the default if you intend to take
the default but need recourse to over-rides (for example if your fib
won't hold full table is an element of the design). if the Rib won't
hold three full tables well that's a different sort of problem, and this
may be the wrong router platform.

joel
> Jared Mauch
>
>> On Mar 2, 2017, at 2:52 PM, Aaron Gould  wrote:
>>
>> Yes, thanks, I am going to do that.  But, is there a middle ground between 
>> being default only and full routes ?  Like is it advantageous for me to ask 
>> for partial routes (like their routes and direct peers and default route) ?  
>> This way I don't have millions of routes but I guess only a few hundred 
>> thousand or less?  Let me know please.
>>
>> -Aaron
>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

On Mar 3, 2017, at 9:05 PM, Job Snijders  wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 09:42:04AM -0500, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>> On Mar 3, 2017, at 7:00 AM, Nick Hilliard  wrote:
>>> Niels Bakker wrote:
 As I explained in the rest of my email that you conveniently didn't
 quote, it's so that you can selectively import routes from all your
 providers in situations where your router cannot handle a full table.
>>> 
>>> it can also break horribly in situations where the provider is providing
>>> "transit" but doesn't provide full transit.
>>> 
>>> OTOH, if you are single-homed, it is highly advisable to accept a
>>> default, the reason being that most transit providers provide bgp
>>> communities with "don't advertise to customers" semantics.  So if you're
>>> single-homed and use a full dfz feed without default route, you will not
>>> have full connectivity to all the routes available from the transit
>>> provider.
> 
> Correct.
> 
>> If you are single-homed, there is no need for BGP at all.
> 
> That is very strongly worded, and in plenty of cases a false assertion.
> 
>> And injecting your ASN into the table is probably not terribly useful
>> to everyone else’s FIB.
> 
> ASNs don't have anything to do with FIB.
> 
>> There are, of course, corner cases. But in general, single-homed
>> people shouldn’t be using BGP.
> 
> There are numerous reasons to use BGP when single-homed:
> 
>- as preparation to multi-home in the (near) future
>- ability to quickly change providers
>- to use BGP based blackholing features
>- to save time on provisioning work (adding new prefixes becomes a
>  matter of just announcing and updating IRR/RPKI).
>- loadbalanacing / loadsharing across multiple links
>- ability to use bgp communities for traffic engineering
> 
> In other words, if you have your own IP space, I'd recommend to get your
> own ASN and use BGP.

First, I said specifically there are corner cases. Everything you say above is 
a corner case. The sum of everyone in need of the above is to the right of the 
decimal compared to all single homed networks. Limiting it to “it you have your 
own IP space” makes the set even smaller.

You are also reaching here. Preparation for multi-homing in the near future is 
just multi-homing. Adding prefixes is a very occasional thing, and in some 
cases is actually not easier with BGP. (Ever worked with some provider’s IRR 
implementation?) Etc.

End of day, if you have your own space and only allow aggregates into the DFZ, 
even as a stub behind someone else, it doesn’t really save RIB slots compared 
to having the upstream announce it for you. My problem is making the exceptions 
sound normal. They are not, and we should not treat them as if they are. Else 
we will end up with people wanting to do it who do not understand what they are 
doing, polluting the table, etc.

I stand by my statement. Single Homed Networks Should Not Use BGP. It is a good 
general rule. There are exceptions, but the exceptions are rare and should be 
approached with caution & clue.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

[Baldur Norddahl]

 In general I would not be single homed to a tier 1 ISP. You are better off
using an ISP that has N upstream transit providers. That way they have
multiple choices to select the best route.

If you accept a default route from multiple upstreams you will be multi
homed for inbound traffic but effectively single homed for outbound. Your
router will select one default route and send 100% of the traffic that way.

Instead of letting the router select a random default route, you should
evaluate and rank your upstreams. Use a route map to set priority on the
routes.

Nobody has the best routes for all destinations, so you will have to find
the one with the best average or perhaps the one that avoids bad routes.
And that brings me to the point about Cogent.

We used to have two upstreams. One was a local tier 2 ISP and the other was
Cogent. Our quality was OK but if the tier 2 ISP link was down our
customers would immediately call to claim downtime. We would not actually
be down but quality was so low that people thought we were.

The reason is that some major destinations from the Cogent network is
routed from Europe to USA and back again. Latency go from a few
milliseconds to 100 times worse. Available bandwidth is very reduced. Video
from major streaming services will not play or only in lowest quality
setting.

I will claim that it is impossible to be single homed on Cogent in Denmark
as an eyeball network. It is probably different if you are in the USA.

This does not mean Cogent are useless. We were happy with the quality of
the network and the price is good. What we experienced was bad peering. You
just can't have them as your only transit.

Regards

Baldur

Den 2. mar. 2017 21.02 skrev "Chuck Anderson" :

Define "good" vs. "bad" transport of bits.  As long as there is
adequate bandwidth and low latency, who cares?

On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 08:30:37PM +0100, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
> That will have the effect of prioritizing Cogent routes as that would be
> more specific than the default routes from the other providers. Cogent are
> not that good that you would want to do that.
>
> Den 2. mar. 2017 20.16 skrev "Jeff Waddell"  >:
>
> Or at least ask for a full view from Cogent - then you won't get any
routes
> they don't have
>
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Alarig Le Lay 
wrote:
>
> > On jeu.  2 mars 12:36:04 2017, Aaron Gould wrote:
> > > Well, I asked my (3) upstream providers to only send me a ipv6 default
> > > route and they sent me ::/0...here's one of them...
> >
> > Why did you don’t ask for a full view? With that, you can easily deal
> > with that kind of problem.

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

[Jeremy Austin]

On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Job Snijders  wrote:

> > There are, of course, corner cases. But in general, single-homed
> > people shouldn’t be using BGP.
>
> There are numerous reasons to use BGP when single-homed:
>
> - as preparation to multi-home in the (near) future
> - ability to quickly change providers
> - to use BGP based blackholing features
> - to save time on provisioning work (adding new prefixes becomes a
>   matter of just announcing and updating IRR/RPKI).
> - loadbalanacing / loadsharing across multiple links
> - ability to use bgp communities for traffic engineering
>
> In other words, if you have your own IP space, I'd recommend to get your
> own ASN and use BGP.


I concur with Job.

If you are single-homed but care about having proper L3 redundancy (not
just VRRP or equivalent), BGP is a must.

ARIN has a policy to allow this, but it is not spelled out with an excess
of clarity. I suspect it is not often used; see NRPM section 5.

-- 
Jeremy Austin

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

[Job Snijders]

On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 09:42:04AM -0500, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> On Mar 3, 2017, at 7:00 AM, Nick Hilliard  wrote:
> > Niels Bakker wrote:
> >> As I explained in the rest of my email that you conveniently didn't
> >> quote, it's so that you can selectively import routes from all your
> >> providers in situations where your router cannot handle a full table.
> > 
> > it can also break horribly in situations where the provider is providing
> > "transit" but doesn't provide full transit.
> > 
> > OTOH, if you are single-homed, it is highly advisable to accept a
> > default, the reason being that most transit providers provide bgp
> > communities with "don't advertise to customers" semantics.  So if you're
> > single-homed and use a full dfz feed without default route, you will not
> > have full connectivity to all the routes available from the transit
> > provider.

Correct.

> If you are single-homed, there is no need for BGP at all.

That is very strongly worded, and in plenty of cases a false assertion.

> And injecting your ASN into the table is probably not terribly useful
> to everyone else’s FIB.

ASNs don't have anything to do with FIB.

> There are, of course, corner cases. But in general, single-homed
> people shouldn’t be using BGP.

There are numerous reasons to use BGP when single-homed:

- as preparation to multi-home in the (near) future
- ability to quickly change providers
- to use BGP based blackholing features
- to save time on provisioning work (adding new prefixes becomes a
  matter of just announcing and updating IRR/RPKI).
- loadbalanacing / loadsharing across multiple links
- ability to use bgp communities for traffic engineering

In other words, if you have your own IP space, I'd recommend to get your
own ASN and use BGP.

Kind regards,

Job

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

On Mar 3, 2017, at 7:00 AM, Nick Hilliard  wrote:
> 
> Niels Bakker wrote:
>> As I explained in the rest of my email that you conveniently didn't
>> quote, it's so that you can selectively import routes from all your
>> providers in situations where your router cannot handle a full table.
> 
> it can also break horribly in situations where the provider is providing
> "transit" but doesn't provide full transit.
> 
> OTOH, if you are single-homed, it is highly advisable to accept a
> default, the reason being that most transit providers provide bgp
> communities with "don't advertise to customers" semantics.  So if you're
> single-homed and use a full dfz feed without default route, you will not
> have full connectivity to all the routes available from the transit
> provider.

If you are single-homed, there is no need for BGP at all. And injecting your 
ASN into the table is probably not terribly useful to everyone else’s FIB.

There are, of course, corner cases. But in general, single-homed people 
shouldn’t be using BGP.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

[Niels Bakker]

* n...@foobar.org (Nick Hilliard) [Fri 03 Mar 2017, 13:02 CET]:

Niels Bakker wrote:
As I explained in the rest of my email that you conveniently 
didn't quote, it's so that you can selectively import routes from 
all your providers in situations where your router cannot handle a 
full table.


it can also break horribly in situations where the provider is 
providing "transit" but doesn't provide full transit.


You don't need to import them into your border router's FIB.  It's 
always good to be able to change your own routing policy without 
having to consult your upstream's NOC.



-- Niels.

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

[Nick Hilliard]

Niels Bakker wrote:
> As I explained in the rest of my email that you conveniently didn't
> quote, it's so that you can selectively import routes from all your
> providers in situations where your router cannot handle a full table.

it can also break horribly in situations where the provider is providing
"transit" but doesn't provide full transit.

OTOH, if you are single-homed, it is highly advisable to accept a
default, the reason being that most transit providers provide bgp
communities with "don't advertise to customers" semantics.  So if you're
single-homed and use a full dfz feed without default route, you will not
have full connectivity to all the routes available from the transit
provider.

Nick

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

[Niels Bakker]

* how...@leadmon.net (Howard Leadmon) [Fri 03 Mar 2017, 01:06 CET]:

On 3/2/2017 2:57 PM, Niels Bakker wrote:

You should ask for full routes from all your providers + a default.


 If you taking full routes from everyone, why would you need a
default?   If they don't show a route for it, they probably can't reach
it.   I don't think I have run with a default route external for many
years, and so far it hasn't bit me yet..


As I explained in the rest of my email that you conveniently didn't 
quote, it's so that you can selectively import routes from all your 
providers in situations where your router cannot handle a full table.



-- Niels.

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

[Theodore Baschak]

My own experience was that I tried to use the 2000::/3 route initially and
that was fine with static routes in my lab, but once dynamic routing
protocols were introduced, ::/0 was the only thing recognized as "default"
to propagate or not with default-route statements in BGP and OSPF.

That may vary from platform to platform, however the ones I played with all
exhibited this behaviour.


Theodore Baschak - AS395089 - Hextet Systems
https://ciscodude.net/ - https://hextet.systems/
http://mbix.ca/


On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 8:01 PM, Dennis Bohn  wrote:

> Interesting question whether 2000::/3 or ::/0 is the better default route.
> From what I can tell (as OP indicated) most are using ::/0. (I should
> probably add for those who have not been running V6 for long that for the
> forseeble future 2000::/3 is the extent of the V6 allocation, the rest
> being held back for future use. Which is why that could be a default.) Is
> there any case where 2000::/3 would hurt one? One person mentioned
> something like 64:ff9b::/96, which per
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-special-
> registry/iana-ipv6-special-registry.xhtml,
> is the v4 to v6 translator net. Does anyone actually use that?
> best,
> dennis
>
> Dennis Bohn
> Manager of Network and Systems (ret)
> Adelphi University
> b...@adelphi.edu
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Baldur Norddahl <
> baldur.nordd...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Shouldn't that be 2000::/3 ?
> >
> > Den 2. mar. 2017 17.06 skrev "Aaron Gould" :
> >
> > Correction...  ::/0 is what I learn from those 3 :)
> >
>

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

[Dennis Bohn]

Interesting question whether 2000::/3 or ::/0 is the better default route.
>From what I can tell (as OP indicated) most are using ::/0. (I should
probably add for those who have not been running V6 for long that for the
forseeble future 2000::/3 is the extent of the V6 allocation, the rest
being held back for future use. Which is why that could be a default.) Is
there any case where 2000::/3 would hurt one? One person mentioned
something like 64:ff9b::/96, which per
http://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-special-registry/iana-ipv6-special-registry.xhtml,
is the v4 to v6 translator net. Does anyone actually use that?
best,
dennis

Dennis Bohn
Manager of Network and Systems (ret)
Adelphi University
b...@adelphi.edu


On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Baldur Norddahl 
wrote:

> Shouldn't that be 2000::/3 ?
>
> Den 2. mar. 2017 17.06 skrev "Aaron Gould" :
>
> Correction...  ::/0 is what I learn from those 3 :)
>

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

[Howard Leadmon]

On 3/2/2017 2:57 PM, Niels Bakker wrote:

You should ask for full routes from all your providers + a default.


-- Niels.


 If you taking full routes from everyone, why would you need a 
default?   If they don't show a route for it, they probably can't reach 
it.   I don't think I have run with a default route external for many 
years, and so far it hasn't bit me yet..



---
Howard Leadmon
PBW Communications, LLC
http://www.pbwcomm.com

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

[Jared Mauch]

Yes. Most providers can send you just their customer routes. If they send you 
full routes you want to discriminate customer vs peer routes. This is typically 
done with communities and is worthwhile as most people have capacity on 
customer links but via peer it may not always be the case. 

As is usual YMMV

Jared Mauch

> On Mar 2, 2017, at 2:52 PM, Aaron Gould  wrote:
> 
> Yes, thanks, I am going to do that.  But, is there a middle ground between 
> being default only and full routes ?  Like is it advantageous for me to ask 
> for partial routes (like their routes and direct peers and default route) ?  
> This way I don't have millions of routes but I guess only a few hundred 
> thousand or less?  Let me know please.
> 
> -Aaron

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

[Hunter Fuller]

I think the implication is that, on Cogent, there isn't. :)

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 14:00 Chuck Anderson  wrote:

> Define "good" vs. "bad" transport of bits.  As long as there is
> adequate bandwidth and low latency, who cares?
>
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 08:30:37PM +0100, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
> > That will have the effect of prioritizing Cogent routes as that would be
> > more specific than the default routes from the other providers. Cogent
> are
> > not that good that you would want to do that.
> >
> > Den 2. mar. 2017 20.16 skrev "Jeff Waddell" <
> jeff+na...@waddellsolutions.com
> > >:
> >
> > Or at least ask for a full view from Cogent - then you won't get any
> routes
> > they don't have
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Alarig Le Lay 
> wrote:
> >
> > > On jeu.  2 mars 12:36:04 2017, Aaron Gould wrote:
> > > > Well, I asked my (3) upstream providers to only send me a ipv6
> default
> > > > route and they sent me ::/0...here's one of them...
> > >
> > > Why did you don’t ask for a full view? With that, you can easily deal
> > > with that kind of problem.
>

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

[Chuck Anderson]

Define "good" vs. "bad" transport of bits.  As long as there is
adequate bandwidth and low latency, who cares?

On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 08:30:37PM +0100, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
> That will have the effect of prioritizing Cogent routes as that would be
> more specific than the default routes from the other providers. Cogent are
> not that good that you would want to do that.
> 
> Den 2. mar. 2017 20.16 skrev "Jeff Waddell"  >:
> 
> Or at least ask for a full view from Cogent - then you won't get any routes
> they don't have
> 
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Alarig Le Lay  wrote:
> 
> > On jeu.  2 mars 12:36:04 2017, Aaron Gould wrote:
> > > Well, I asked my (3) upstream providers to only send me a ipv6 default
> > > route and they sent me ::/0...here's one of them...
> >
> > Why did you don’t ask for a full view? With that, you can easily deal
> > with that kind of problem.

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

[Niels Bakker]

* aar...@gvtc.com (Aaron Gould) [Thu 02 Mar 2017, 20:52 CET]:
Yes, thanks, I am going to do that.  But, is there a middle ground 
between being default only and full routes ?  Like is it 
advantageous for me to ask for partial routes (like their routes and 
direct peers and default route) ?  This way I don't have millions of 
routes but I guess only a few hundred thousand or less? Let me know 
please.


You should ask for full routes from all your providers + a default.

Then you write per-upstream import policies to permit or deny specific 
subsets of the prefixes they announce to you.  For example, you could 
accept all prefixes from Cogent and your other upstreams tagged with a 
BGP community indicating they're from customers, and accept default 
from all except Cogent to take care of the rest of the traffic while 
still pretty much sending traffic to downstream customers to their 
respective upstream.  (Or you can accept default from all but also 
import networks with whom Cogent has no direct relationship from your 
other upstreams; but that's less failsafe.)


Depending on what router hardware you have and what upstreams, you may 
have to filter out additional prefixes to not overflow its FIB.



-- Niels.

RE: google ipv6 routes via cogent

[Aaron Gould]

Yes, thanks, I am going to do that.  But, is there a middle ground between 
being default only and full routes ?  Like is it advantageous for me to ask for 
partial routes (like their routes and direct peers and default route) ?  This 
way I don't have millions of routes but I guess only a few hundred thousand or 
less?  Let me know please.

-Aaron

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

[Jeff Waddell]

Ah - you are correct

So - yeah what Alarig said - get full routes from all

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Baldur Norddahl 
wrote:

> That will have the effect of prioritizing Cogent routes as that would be
> more specific than the default routes from the other providers. Cogent are
> not that good that you would want to do that.
>
> Den 2. mar. 2017 20.16 skrev "Jeff Waddell"  com
> >:
>
> Or at least ask for a full view from Cogent - then you won't get any routes
> they don't have
>
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Alarig Le Lay 
> wrote:
>
> > On jeu.  2 mars 12:36:04 2017, Aaron Gould wrote:
> > > Well, I asked my (3) upstream providers to only send me a ipv6 default
> > > route and they sent me ::/0...here's one of them...
> >
> > Why did you don’t ask for a full view? With that, you can easily deal
> > with that kind of problem.
> >
> > --
> > alarig
> >
>

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

[Baldur Norddahl]

That will have the effect of prioritizing Cogent routes as that would be
more specific than the default routes from the other providers. Cogent are
not that good that you would want to do that.

Den 2. mar. 2017 20.16 skrev "Jeff Waddell" :

Or at least ask for a full view from Cogent - then you won't get any routes
they don't have

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Alarig Le Lay  wrote:

> On jeu.  2 mars 12:36:04 2017, Aaron Gould wrote:
> > Well, I asked my (3) upstream providers to only send me a ipv6 default
> > route and they sent me ::/0...here's one of them...
>
> Why did you don’t ask for a full view? With that, you can easily deal
> with that kind of problem.
>
> --
> alarig
>

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

[Jeff Waddell]

Or at least ask for a full view from Cogent - then you won't get any routes
they don't have

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Alarig Le Lay  wrote:

> On jeu.  2 mars 12:36:04 2017, Aaron Gould wrote:
> > Well, I asked my (3) upstream providers to only send me a ipv6 default
> > route and they sent me ::/0...here's one of them...
>
> Why did you don’t ask for a full view? With that, you can easily deal
> with that kind of problem.
>
> --
> alarig
>

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

[Alarig Le Lay]

On jeu.  2 mars 12:36:04 2017, Aaron Gould wrote:
> Well, I asked my (3) upstream providers to only send me a ipv6 default
> route and they sent me ::/0...here's one of them... 

Why did you don’t ask for a full view? With that, you can easily deal
with that kind of problem.

-- 
alarig


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

RE: google ipv6 routes via cogent

[Aaron Gould]

Well, I asked my (3) upstream providers to only send me a ipv6 default route 
and they sent me ::/0...here's one of them... 


RP/0/RSP0/CPU0: 9k#sh bgp vrf one ipv6 uni neighbors abcd:1234::1 routes
Thu Mar  2 12:33:23.644 CST
...
Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best
  i - internal, r RIB-failure, S stale
Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete
   NetworkNext HopMetric LocPrf Weight Path
Route Distinguisher: 10.101.0.2:1 (default for vrf one)
*> ::/0   abcd:1234::1
 0 1234 i

Processed 1 prefixes, 1 paths

-Aaron

RE: google ipv6 routes via cogent

[Baldur Norddahl]

Shouldn't that be 2000::/3 ?

Den 2. mar. 2017 17.06 skrev "Aaron Gould" :

Correction...  ::/0 is what I learn from those 3 :)

RE: google ipv6 routes via cogent

[Aaron Gould]

Correction...  ::/0 is what I learn from those 3 :) 

RE: google ipv6 routes via cogent

[Aaron Gould]

Thanks everyone, and my apologies.

After I sent that email to you all, I did google for it and found that this has 
been a problem since ~ February 2016.  Dang, that long?!

In that case, I'm shutting down my ipv6 neighboring with cogent.  I have 2 
other inet v6 connections.  I only learn 0/0 from all 3 isp's and I am not 
controlling which packets outbound where.  I may change that and learn their 
prefixes and their peers, and then re-enable my cogent ipv6 bgp session then, 
but until then, I'm leaving it down.

Thanks again y'all.

RP/0/RSP0/CPU0:9k#sh bgp vrf one ipv6 unicast summary

Process   RcvTblVer   bRIB/RIB   LabelVer  ImportVer  SendTblVer  StandbyVer
Speaker 140140140140 140 140

NeighborSpkAS MsgRcvd MsgSent   TblVer  InQ OutQ  Up/Down  St/PfxRcd
abcd:1234:efab:1212:1:1
  0   174   55615   55615000 17:35:34 Idle 
(Admin)


-Aaron

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

[Alarig Le Lay]

On sam. 25 févr. 09:49:56 2017, Aaron wrote:
> Hi, I'm new to the nanog list, hope this isn't out of scope for what is
> usually discussed here.
> 
>  
> 
> Cogent is telling me that I can't route through cogent to get to google ipv6
> routes (particularly the well known dns addresses 2001:4860:4860::88xx)
> because google decided not to advertise those route to one of their mutual
> peers.
> 
>  
> 
> Anyone know anything about this ?  .and why it happened and when it will be
> resolved ?
> 
>  
> 
> -Aaron

Hi,

Cogent is not able to receive traffic from Google since February 2016,
the case is the same with HE since 2010.

So, as a quick workaround, you have to connect your network to another
IPv6 transit operator for these destinations.

I you don’t have this possibility, you can set up an IPv6-in-IPv4 tunnel
to HE; the IPv4 traffic flows normally.

-- 
alarig


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

[Christopher Morrow]

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Alarig Le Lay  wrote:

> On sam. 25 févr. 09:49:56 2017, Aaron wrote:Hi,
>

> Cogent is not able to receive traffic from Google since February 2016,
> the case is the same with HE since 2010.
>
>
I think maybe that wording isn't quite correct:
  "is not able to receive traffic from ...'

isn't really what's going on is it? I mean, it's not like the interfaces
aren't able to push packets, is it?

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

[Olivier Benghozi]

Due to various peering disputes (notably with Hurricane Electric) Cogent just 
don't have all the routes in IPv6 (and should be regarded as a partial IPv6 
transit only).
One should not rely only on Cogent for its transit, anyway :)
Don't count on any improvement soon. It was already discussed here one year 
ago...

> On 25 feb. 2017 at 16:49, Aaron  wrote :
> 
> Cogent is telling me that I can't route through cogent to get to google ipv6
> routes (particularly the well known dns addresses 2001:4860:4860::88xx)
> because google decided not to advertise those route to one of their mutual
> peers.
> 
> Anyone know anything about this ?  .and why it happened and when it will be
> resolved ?

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Just Google for it.. this is probably one of the oldest running Klan dispute in 
the industry..

http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2009/10/22/peering-disputes-migrate-to-ipv6/


Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net

- Original Message -
> From: "Aaron" <aar...@gvtc.com>
> To: "nanog list" <nanog@nanog.org>
> Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2017 10:49:56 AM
> Subject: google ipv6 routes via cogent

> Hi, I'm new to the nanog list, hope this isn't out of scope for what is
> usually discussed here.
> 
> 
> 
> Cogent is telling me that I can't route through cogent to get to google ipv6
> routes (particularly the well known dns addresses 2001:4860:4860::88xx)
> because google decided not to advertise those route to one of their mutual
> peers.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone know anything about this ?  .and why it happened and when it will be
> resolved ?
> 
> 
> 
> -Aaron

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

[Jon Lewis]

On Sat, 25 Feb 2017, Aaron wrote:


Hi, I'm new to the nanog list, hope this isn't out of scope for what is
usually discussed here.



Cogent is telling me that I can't route through cogent to get to google ipv6
routes (particularly the well known dns addresses 2001:4860:4860::88xx)
because google decided not to advertise those route to one of their mutual
peers.

Anyone know anything about this ?  .and why it happened and when it will be
resolved ?


Google wants Cogent to peer with them.  Cogent wants Google to buy transit 
or use another transit provider to reach Cogent.  Check the archives for 
the dead horse.


--
 Jon Lewis, MCP :)   |  I route
 |  therefore you are
_ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

[Mike Hammett]

http://bfy.tw/AOcZ 

There's even a NANOG thread or two in there. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Aaron" <aar...@gvtc.com> 
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2017 9:49:56 AM 
Subject: google ipv6 routes via cogent 

Hi, I'm new to the nanog list, hope this isn't out of scope for what is 
usually discussed here. 



Cogent is telling me that I can't route through cogent to get to google ipv6 
routes (particularly the well known dns addresses 2001:4860:4860::88xx) 
because google decided not to advertise those route to one of their mutual 
peers. 



Anyone know anything about this ? .and why it happened and when it will be 
resolved ? 



-Aaron 

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

[Marty Strong via NANOG]

Cogent refuses to settlement-free peer on IPv6 to Google and Hurricane Electric.

The problem *in my mind* rests with Cogent trying to extract $$$ from said 
parties.

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

https://www.peeringdb.com/asn/13335

> On 25 Feb 2017, at 15:49, Aaron  wrote:
> 
> Hi, I'm new to the nanog list, hope this isn't out of scope for what is
> usually discussed here.
> 
> 
> 
> Cogent is telling me that I can't route through cogent to get to google ipv6
> routes (particularly the well known dns addresses 2001:4860:4860::88xx)
> because google decided not to advertise those route to one of their mutual
> peers.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone know anything about this ?  .and why it happened and when it will be
> resolved ?
> 
> 
> 
> -Aaron
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

google ipv6 routes via cogent

[Aaron]

Hi, I'm new to the nanog list, hope this isn't out of scope for what is
usually discussed here.

 

Cogent is telling me that I can't route through cogent to get to google ipv6
routes (particularly the well known dns addresses 2001:4860:4860::88xx)
because google decided not to advertise those route to one of their mutual
peers.

 

Anyone know anything about this ?  .and why it happened and when it will be
resolved ?

 

-Aaron