Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Owen DeLong]

I think the RFQ idea isn’t a bad one, but I doubt it will have any effect.

Cogent already knows that they have customers leaving because of their peering 
wars. They
don’t seem to care.

However, if it’s going to be effective, I think the RFQ has to be achievable by 
most other
networks.

I propose:


Provider must demonstrate a peering policy conducive to maintaining 
reachability to all
publicly advertised space on the internet. Provider must show that they have 
reachability
to all autonomous systems visible from route-views or other publicly accessible 
looking
glass system(s). Provider must demonstrate these capabilities for both IPv4 and 
IPv6.


In this way, you’ve got a succinct, easily achievable criteria that roughly 
approximates
full routes and a relatively clear message that restrictive “pay us or forget 
about reaching
our subscribers” peering policy isn’t going to get them selected as your 
provider.

Owen

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Mark Tinka]

On 16/Mar/16 22:17, Owen DeLong wrote:

> Sure, that’s valid and I’m not criticizing your decision. Just saying that
> according to you, Cogent outright lied to you in 2014 and you let them get
> away with it.

I probably should have been clearer in stating that between 2010 and
2014, Cogent's IPv6 coverage improved significantly. Although we knew it
was not the complete view, it was close and had no material impact on
our IPv6 capabilities re: our customers either way, as a function of the
value their network offered us overall for the amount of money we pay to
them.

In 2010 and 2012, Cogent would have been in a position to be the sole or
one of two upstreams for the networks I represented.

In 2014, they are one of 7x upstreams + tons of peering. So we were more
relaxed.

Mark.

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Dennis Bohn]

On Mar 16, 2016 10:06 AM, "Christopher Morrow" 
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Dennis Bohn  wrote:
> > So if someone (say an eyeball network) was putting out a RFQ for a gig
say
> > of upstream cxn and wanted to spec full reachability to the full V6 net,
> > what would the wording for that spec look like?
> > Would that get $provider's attention?
>
> "We would like transit services to the full ipv4 and ipv6 addressable
> space, we would like our prefixes to be advertised to the whole of the
> above space as well."
>
> then you'd by one (some) connection(s) from 'best option #1' and
> one(some) connection(s) to 'next best option'.
>
> I'm not sure 'rfq' is required here is it? 

I was thinking RFQ with specific requirements might get cogent attention
more than a call. Sure they wouldn't change policy for me, but if they were
unable to meet quote requirements repeatedly it might have some effect...
or am I dreaming?

  and potentially what knobs
> the providers expose to you for bgp TE functionality?

Good thought to include that. Tnx.
D.

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Owen DeLong]

> On Mar 16, 2016, at 11:43 , Mark Tinka  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 16/Mar/16 17:41, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> 
>> my guess is the same as Owen's ... 'your rfq don't mean squat'.
>> honestly it's not like people don't ask their cogent sales folk for
>> this sort of thing, it's just not cogent's (clearly, given how long
>> the HE/Cogent thing along has persisted) way of doing things.
>> 
>> Sometimes your belief system just isn't theirs.
> 
> The first time I considered buying from Cogent was out of One Wilshire,
> back in 2010. I did a 1-month PoC with them.
> 
> The global IPv6 BGP table was around 2,500 routes then. Cogent had only
> 100 or so, IIRC. I told them I would not sign with them due to this.
> 
> Fast-forward to 2012, nothing much had changed when they tried to get me
> to buy from them again (out of London, this time), and I told them why.
> Then in 2014, they tracked me down again and confirmed they then had a
> full IPv6 BGP table. So I added them to my network (out of Amsterdam).

Please confirm that you in fact are receiving 174 * 6939 IPv6 paths from them?

Seems unlikely to me.

Owen

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[William Herrin]

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Dennis Bohn  wrote:
> So if someone (say an eyeball network) was putting out a RFQ for a gig say
> of upstream cxn and wanted to spec full reachability to the full V6 net,
> what would the wording for that spec look like?

Maybe require something roughly like this in the SLA:

"Customer may notify Provider upon discovery of a network Partition. A
Partition exists when correct BGP routes available via at least 90% of
comparable Internet service providers are absent from Provider's BGP
feed or do not otherwise function. Where such Partition persists for
at least 6 hours from notification, Provider shall make a 100% service
credit starting from notification. Where such Partition persists for
at least 24 hours, Customer may terminate this contract without
penalty until 30 days following the Partition's end."

> Would that get $provider's attention?

No. They'll either agree blindly or consider you a hard case. Either
way it won't change their actual behavior.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


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

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Owen DeLong]

> On Mar 16, 2016, at 12:42 , Mark Tinka  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 16/Mar/16 21:23, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 
>> Please confirm that you in fact are receiving 174 * 6939 IPv6 paths from 
>> them?
>> 
>> Seems unlikely to me.
> 
> Nope (neither IPv4 nor IPv6) - they are about 1,500 IPv6 routes short
> from what we see from the others.
> 

Which means that they didn’t meet your requirements, but you bought from them
anyway. Even in 2014, they still don’t have a full IPv6 table, despite their
claim to the contrary.



> You're welcome to poke if you want to test my perspective:
> 
>http://as37100.net/
> 

I believe you.

> They've obviously regressed a little bit, although it appears they never
> did have any engagement with HE in particular, for either IP protocol.
> In fairness, we knew getting into bed with Cogent would bring Daily Joy,
> which is why we considered them last of all the major networks to on-board.
> 
> But as I said before, we have sufficient transit and peering that
> Cogent's insufficiencies do not impact us. For now, what they have on
> their network offers us some value (and they aren't necessarily any
> cheaper than any of our other transit providers). If that value should
> drop below a level where having them on the network is neither here nor
> there, they'll get the boot.

Sure, that’s valid and I’m not criticizing your decision. Just saying that
according to you, Cogent outright lied to you in 2014 and you let them get
away with it.

Owen

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Christopher Morrow]

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Dennis Bohn <b...@adelphi.edu> wrote:
> So if someone (say an eyeball network) was putting out a RFQ for a gig say
> of upstream cxn and wanted to spec full reachability to the full V6 net,
> what would the wording for that spec look like?
> Would that get $provider's attention?

"We would like transit services to the full ipv4 and ipv6 addressable
space, we would like our prefixes to be advertised to the whole of the
above space as well."

then you'd by one (some) connection(s) from 'best option #1' and
one(some) connection(s) to 'next best option'.

I'm not sure 'rfq' is required here is it? you just call the caida
top-10/15 and roll based on cost/performance. There are notable
exceptions to network performance (routing performance?) but really
they are all the same now, yes?

perhaps you would be more concerned not with 'ipv6/v4 reachability'
than with how what your customers access (may access in the future) is
reachable from the providers in question? and potentially what knobs
the providers expose to you for bgp TE functionality?

> On Mar 15, 2016 12:50 AM, "Todd Crane" <todd.cr...@n5tech.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> > This is only tangentially related but it looks like HE has surpassed
>> Cogent on IPv4 adjacencies. That said the source probably suffers from a
>> selection bias at the very least.
>> >
>> > http://bgp.he.net/report/peers
>> >
>> >
>> Hit reply by mistake instead of reply all.
>>
>> > Todd Crane
>> >
>> >> On Mar 14, 2016, at 8:40 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman <mharde...@ipifony.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> It looks like Google is experimenting with a change in course on this
>> issue.
>> >>
>> >> Here’s a look at the IPv6 routing table tonight on my router bordering
>> Cogent.
>> >>
>> >> *>i 2607:f8b0:4013::/48
>> >>2620:121:a000:f0::2(fe80::618:d6ff:fef1:c540)
>> >>  0150  0
>>  15169 i
>> >> *2001:550:2:22::1d:1(fe80::12f3:11ff:fe29:2c24)
>> >>  090   0
>>  174 6461 15169 i
>> >> *>i 2607:f8b0:4014::/48
>> >>2620:121:a000:f0::2(fe80::618:d6ff:fef1:c540)
>> >>  0110  0
>>  6939 6461 15169 i
>> >> *2001:550:2:22::1d:1(fe80::12f3:11ff:fe29:2c24)
>> >>  090   0
>>  174 6461 15169 i
>> >> *>i 2607:f8b0:4016::/48
>> >>2620:121:a000:f0::2(fe80::618:d6ff:fef1:c540)
>> >>  0150  0
>>  15169 i
>> >> *2001:550:2:22::1d:1(fe80::12f3:11ff:fe29:2c24)
>> >>  090   0
>>  174 6461 15169 i
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> This is only 3 IPv6 prefixes (out of 47 prefixes seen in my IPv6
>> routing table).  Two of these prefixes I see via direct peering with Google
>> and, alternatively, via Cogent through Zayo transit.  One of these prefixes
>> doesn’t advertise in Google’s direct peering session (at least not in mine,
>> but HE picks it up via Zayo and Cogent picks it up via Zayo).
>> >>
>> >> All of these are /48 subnets of their greater 2620:f8b0::/32 prefix,
>> which does show up in both their direct session and in HE via Zayo.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> On Mar 13, 2016, at 9:31 AM, Dennis Burgess <dmburg...@linktechs.net>
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> In the end, google has made a choice. I think these kinds of choices
>> will delay IPv6 adoption.
>> >>>
>> >>> -Original Message-
>> >>> From: Damien Burke [mailto:dam...@supremebytes.com]
>> >>> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 2:51 PM
>> >>> To: Mark Tinka <mark.ti...@seacom.mu>; Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com>;
>> Dennis Burgess <dmburg...@linktechs.net>
>> >>> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
>> >>> Subject: RE: Cogent - Google - HE Fun
>> >>>
>> >>> Just received an updated statement from cogent support:
>> >>>
>> >>> "We appreciate your concerns. This is a known issue that originates
>> with Google as it is up to their discretion as to how they announce routes
>> to us v4 or v6.
>> >>>
>> >>> Once again, apologies for any inconvenience."
>> >>>
>> >>> And:
>> >>>
>> >>> "The SLA does not cover route transit beyond our network. We cannot
>> route to IPs that are not announced to us by the IP owner, directly or
>> through a network peer."
>> >>
>>

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Mark Tinka]

On 16/Mar/16 17:41, Christopher Morrow wrote:

> my guess is the same as Owen's ... 'your rfq don't mean squat'.
> honestly it's not like people don't ask their cogent sales folk for
> this sort of thing, it's just not cogent's (clearly, given how long
> the HE/Cogent thing along has persisted) way of doing things.
>
> Sometimes your belief system just isn't theirs.

The first time I considered buying from Cogent was out of One Wilshire,
back in 2010. I did a 1-month PoC with them.

The global IPv6 BGP table was around 2,500 routes then. Cogent had only
100 or so, IIRC. I told them I would not sign with them due to this.

Fast-forward to 2012, nothing much had changed when they tried to get me
to buy from them again (out of London, this time), and I told them why.
Then in 2014, they tracked me down again and confirmed they then had a
full IPv6 BGP table. So I added them to my network (out of Amsterdam).

Cogent form part of the 7x upstreams I have (not to mention all the
peering we do). So if they de-peer some network, we aren't stuck. I have
them on my network because they add value to some paths on the Internet,
and not because of price.

I'm one guy, so I can't say whether my actions over the years prompted a
warm body within the Cogent machine to rethink their IPv6 strategy. But
I think if you refuse to buy from them on principles that matter to you,
and you tell them why, it could help. If it doesn't, move on - it won't
be your loss.

I would, though, say that the amount of support this list is giving
Cogent to keep their heart beating is astounding. If there was ever a
time for them to listen to their environment, this would be it. But alas...

Mark.

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Baldur Norddahl]

On 16 March 2016 at 14:56, Dennis Bohn  wrote:

> So if someone (say an eyeball network) was putting out a RFQ for a gig say
> of upstream cxn and wanted to spec full reachability to the full V6 net,
> what would the wording for that spec look like?
> Would that get $provider's attention?
>

But is that even possible to deliver? I might have some address space that
I only advertised with no export to a single peer - does that count? If
some third party decides to stop advertising a prefix to $provider are they
then in breach of contract with no way to resolve it? If so, I want to sign
up and then I will pull some insignificant prefix, just so I can demand $5
million USD in ransom money.

Google decided they have some prefixes they don't want to advertise to
Cogent. They did offer a reasonable way for Cogent to resolve that issue,
but what if Google werent reasonable? Do you still demand that Cogent cave
in to anything?

I see no easy way here other than let the market decide. If Cogent sucks
they will get less traffic and less customers. Or maybe someone finds them
useful at the pricepoint they offer.

Regards,

Baldur

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Mark Tinka]

On 16/Mar/16 21:23, Owen DeLong wrote:

> Please confirm that you in fact are receiving 174 * 6939 IPv6 paths from them?
>
> Seems unlikely to me.

Nope (neither IPv4 nor IPv6) - they are about 1,500 IPv6 routes short
from what we see from the others.

You're welcome to poke if you want to test my perspective:

http://as37100.net/

They've obviously regressed a little bit, although it appears they never
did have any engagement with HE in particular, for either IP protocol.
In fairness, we knew getting into bed with Cogent would bring Daily Joy,
which is why we considered them last of all the major networks to on-board.

But as I said before, we have sufficient transit and peering that
Cogent's insufficiencies do not impact us. For now, what they have on
their network offers us some value (and they aren't necessarily any
cheaper than any of our other transit providers). If that value should
drop below a level where having them on the network is neither here nor
there, they'll get the boot.

Mark.

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Christopher Morrow]

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Dennis Bohn  wrote:
>
> On Mar 16, 2016 10:06 AM, "Christopher Morrow" 
> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Dennis Bohn  wrote:
>> > So if someone (say an eyeball network) was putting out a RFQ for a gig
>> > say
>> > of upstream cxn and wanted to spec full reachability to the full V6 net,
>> > what would the wording for that spec look like?
>> > Would that get $provider's attention?
>>
>> "We would like transit services to the full ipv4 and ipv6 addressable
>> space, we would like our prefixes to be advertised to the whole of the
>> above space as well."
>>
>> then you'd by one (some) connection(s) from 'best option #1' and
>> one(some) connection(s) to 'next best option'.
>>
>> I'm not sure 'rfq' is required here is it? 
>
> I was thinking RFQ with specific requirements might get cogent attention
> more than a call. Sure they wouldn't change policy for me, but if they were
> unable to meet quote requirements repeatedly it might have some effect... or
> am I dreaming?
>

my guess is the same as Owen's ... 'your rfq don't mean squat'.
honestly it's not like people don't ask their cogent sales folk for
this sort of thing, it's just not cogent's (clearly, given how long
the HE/Cogent thing along has persisted) way of doing things.

Sometimes your belief system just isn't theirs.

>   and potentially what knobs
>> the providers expose to you for bgp TE functionality?
>
> Good thought to include that. Tnx.
> D.

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Dennis Bohn]

So if someone (say an eyeball network) was putting out a RFQ for a gig say
of upstream cxn and wanted to spec full reachability to the full V6 net,
what would the wording for that spec look like?
Would that get $provider's attention?
On Mar 15, 2016 12:50 AM, "Todd Crane" <todd.cr...@n5tech.com> wrote:

>
> > This is only tangentially related but it looks like HE has surpassed
> Cogent on IPv4 adjacencies. That said the source probably suffers from a
> selection bias at the very least.
> >
> > http://bgp.he.net/report/peers
> >
> >
> Hit reply by mistake instead of reply all.
>
> > Todd Crane
> >
> >> On Mar 14, 2016, at 8:40 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman <mharde...@ipifony.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> It looks like Google is experimenting with a change in course on this
> issue.
> >>
> >> Here’s a look at the IPv6 routing table tonight on my router bordering
> Cogent.
> >>
> >> *>i 2607:f8b0:4013::/48
> >>2620:121:a000:f0::2(fe80::618:d6ff:fef1:c540)
> >>  0150  0
>  15169 i
> >> *2001:550:2:22::1d:1(fe80::12f3:11ff:fe29:2c24)
> >>  090   0
>  174 6461 15169 i
> >> *>i 2607:f8b0:4014::/48
> >>2620:121:a000:f0::2(fe80::618:d6ff:fef1:c540)
> >>  0110  0
>  6939 6461 15169 i
> >> *2001:550:2:22::1d:1(fe80::12f3:11ff:fe29:2c24)
> >>  090   0
>  174 6461 15169 i
> >> *>i 2607:f8b0:4016::/48
> >>2620:121:a000:f0::2(fe80::618:d6ff:fef1:c540)
> >>  0150  0
>  15169 i
> >> *2001:550:2:22::1d:1(fe80::12f3:11ff:fe29:2c24)
> >>  090   0
>  174 6461 15169 i
> >>
> >>
> >> This is only 3 IPv6 prefixes (out of 47 prefixes seen in my IPv6
> routing table).  Two of these prefixes I see via direct peering with Google
> and, alternatively, via Cogent through Zayo transit.  One of these prefixes
> doesn’t advertise in Google’s direct peering session (at least not in mine,
> but HE picks it up via Zayo and Cogent picks it up via Zayo).
> >>
> >> All of these are /48 subnets of their greater 2620:f8b0::/32 prefix,
> which does show up in both their direct session and in HE via Zayo.
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Mar 13, 2016, at 9:31 AM, Dennis Burgess <dmburg...@linktechs.net>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> In the end, google has made a choice. I think these kinds of choices
> will delay IPv6 adoption.
> >>>
> >>> -Original Message-
> >>> From: Damien Burke [mailto:dam...@supremebytes.com]
> >>> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 2:51 PM
> >>> To: Mark Tinka <mark.ti...@seacom.mu>; Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com>;
> Dennis Burgess <dmburg...@linktechs.net>
> >>> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
> >>> Subject: RE: Cogent - Google - HE Fun
> >>>
> >>> Just received an updated statement from cogent support:
> >>>
> >>> "We appreciate your concerns. This is a known issue that originates
> with Google as it is up to their discretion as to how they announce routes
> to us v4 or v6.
> >>>
> >>> Once again, apologies for any inconvenience."
> >>>
> >>> And:
> >>>
> >>> "The SLA does not cover route transit beyond our network. We cannot
> route to IPs that are not announced to us by the IP owner, directly or
> through a network peer."
> >>
>

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Jay Hennigan]

On 3/11/16 7:18 AM, Robert Jacobs wrote:

 Till we have exclusive content on IPV6 or it is a shorter, faster, bigger, 
better path then we are still fighting this uphill battle to get more adoption 
of IPV6 and it will not matter to the majority of Cogent customers that they 
can't get full IPV6 routes and connections from Cogent.


Time to resurrect "The Great IPv6 Experiment"?

--
Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - j...@impulse.net
Impulse Internet Service  -  http://www.impulse.net/
Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Todd Crane]

> This is only tangentially related but it looks like HE has surpassed Cogent 
> on IPv4 adjacencies. That said the source probably suffers from a selection 
> bias at the very least.
> 
> http://bgp.he.net/report/peers
> 
> 
Hit reply by mistake instead of reply all. 

> Todd Crane
> 
>> On Mar 14, 2016, at 8:40 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman <mharde...@ipifony.com> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> It looks like Google is experimenting with a change in course on this issue.
>> 
>> Here’s a look at the IPv6 routing table tonight on my router bordering 
>> Cogent.
>> 
>> *>i 2607:f8b0:4013::/48
>>2620:121:a000:f0::2(fe80::618:d6ff:fef1:c540)
>>  0150  0   15169 
>> i
>> *2001:550:2:22::1d:1(fe80::12f3:11ff:fe29:2c24)
>>  090   0   174 
>> 6461 15169 i
>> *>i 2607:f8b0:4014::/48
>>2620:121:a000:f0::2(fe80::618:d6ff:fef1:c540)
>>  0110  0   6939 
>> 6461 15169 i
>> *2001:550:2:22::1d:1(fe80::12f3:11ff:fe29:2c24)
>>  090   0   174 
>> 6461 15169 i
>> *>i 2607:f8b0:4016::/48
>>2620:121:a000:f0::2(fe80::618:d6ff:fef1:c540)
>>  0150  0   15169 
>> i
>> *2001:550:2:22::1d:1(fe80::12f3:11ff:fe29:2c24)
>>  090   0   174 
>> 6461 15169 i
>> 
>> 
>> This is only 3 IPv6 prefixes (out of 47 prefixes seen in my IPv6 routing 
>> table).  Two of these prefixes I see via direct peering with Google and, 
>> alternatively, via Cogent through Zayo transit.  One of these prefixes 
>> doesn’t advertise in Google’s direct peering session (at least not in mine, 
>> but HE picks it up via Zayo and Cogent picks it up via Zayo).
>> 
>> All of these are /48 subnets of their greater 2620:f8b0::/32 prefix, which 
>> does show up in both their direct session and in HE via Zayo.
>> 
>> 
>>> On Mar 13, 2016, at 9:31 AM, Dennis Burgess <dmburg...@linktechs.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> In the end, google has made a choice. I think these kinds of choices will 
>>> delay IPv6 adoption.  
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-
>>> From: Damien Burke [mailto:dam...@supremebytes.com] 
>>> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 2:51 PM
>>> To: Mark Tinka <mark.ti...@seacom.mu>; Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com>; 
>>> Dennis Burgess <dmburg...@linktechs.net>
>>> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
>>> Subject: RE: Cogent - Google - HE Fun
>>> 
>>> Just received an updated statement from cogent support:
>>> 
>>> "We appreciate your concerns. This is a known issue that originates with 
>>> Google as it is up to their discretion as to how they announce routes to us 
>>> v4 or v6. 
>>> 
>>> Once again, apologies for any inconvenience."
>>> 
>>> And:
>>> 
>>> "The SLA does not cover route transit beyond our network. We cannot route 
>>> to IPs that are not announced to us by the IP owner, directly or through a 
>>> network peer."
>> 

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Matthew D. Hardeman]

It looks like Google is experimenting with a change in course on this issue.

Here’s a look at the IPv6 routing table tonight on my router bordering Cogent.

*>i 2607:f8b0:4013::/48
2620:121:a000:f0::2(fe80::618:d6ff:fef1:c540)
  0150  0   15169 i
*2001:550:2:22::1d:1(fe80::12f3:11ff:fe29:2c24)
  090   0   174 
6461 15169 i
*>i 2607:f8b0:4014::/48
2620:121:a000:f0::2(fe80::618:d6ff:fef1:c540)
  0110  0   6939 
6461 15169 i
*2001:550:2:22::1d:1(fe80::12f3:11ff:fe29:2c24)
  090   0   174 
6461 15169 i
*>i 2607:f8b0:4016::/48
2620:121:a000:f0::2(fe80::618:d6ff:fef1:c540)
  0150  0   15169 i
*2001:550:2:22::1d:1(fe80::12f3:11ff:fe29:2c24)
  090   0   174 
6461 15169 i


This is only 3 IPv6 prefixes (out of 47 prefixes seen in my IPv6 routing 
table).  Two of these prefixes I see via direct peering with Google and, 
alternatively, via Cogent through Zayo transit.  One of these prefixes doesn’t 
advertise in Google’s direct peering session (at least not in mine, but HE 
picks it up via Zayo and Cogent picks it up via Zayo).

All of these are /48 subnets of their greater 2620:f8b0::/32 prefix, which does 
show up in both their direct session and in HE via Zayo.


> On Mar 13, 2016, at 9:31 AM, Dennis Burgess <dmburg...@linktechs.net> wrote:
> 
> In the end, google has made a choice. I think these kinds of choices will 
> delay IPv6 adoption.  
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Damien Burke [mailto:dam...@supremebytes.com] 
> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 2:51 PM
> To: Mark Tinka <mark.ti...@seacom.mu>; Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com>; Dennis 
> Burgess <dmburg...@linktechs.net>
> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
> Subject: RE: Cogent - Google - HE Fun
> 
> Just received an updated statement from cogent support:
> 
> "We appreciate your concerns. This is a known issue that originates with 
> Google as it is up to their discretion as to how they announce routes to us 
> v4 or v6. 
> 
> Once again, apologies for any inconvenience."
> 
> And:
> 
> "The SLA does not cover route transit beyond our network. We cannot route to 
> IPs that are not announced to us by the IP owner, directly or through a 
> network peer."
> 



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

RE: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Matthew Huff]

I wouldn't say that I know what's best. We have had many different providers 
over the last 20 years that I have been here. We never had an issue with any of 
them until we added Cogent into the mix. Currently we are using a 300MB 
lighttower and a 300MB LighPath metro Ethernet connection. 

From my experience VPN software (both IPSEC and SSLVPN) are very susceptible to 
high packet loss issues. A few retransmissions/out of order/dropped packets 
aren't a problem. A sustained drop rate of 5-10% is a major issue.


Matthew Huff | 1 Manhattanville Rd
Director of Operations   | Purchase, NY 10577
OTA Management LLC   | Phone: 914-460-4039
aim: matthewbhuff    | Fax:   914-694-5669


> -Original Message-
> From: Matthew D. Hardeman [mailto:mharde...@ipifony.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 2:32 PM
> To: Matthew Huff <mh...@ox.com>
> Cc: William Herrin <b...@herrin.us>; James Milko <jmi...@gmail.com>;
> nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun
> 
> I understand.  I tend to take a more market by market view of each
> network rather than a global perspective.  Clearly, for the enterprise
> use case with a diversity of users spread across the globe, or even
> nationally, the use case is a bit different.
> 
> Having said that, I am rather terribly curious...  I’ve not really seen
> any of the major national non-eyeballs who didn’t have congestion at
> some peering points to major eyeball networks for not insignificant
> periods.
> 
> Which transit have you found to be the very best for minimizing those
> concerns in the general case?
> 
> 
> > On Mar 14, 2016, at 1:23 PM, Matthew Huff <mh...@ox.com> wrote:
> >
> > We don't serve a market. We are a private business. We are multi-homed
> with multiple providers, none of which is an eyeball network. Even if we
> wanted to peer, most of them are not available in our area, but our the
> only choice for some of our employees.
> >
> > Cogent still has congestion issues at various peering points as has
> been reported in this and other mailing lists recently. Like I said, if
> VOIP and VPN aren't an issue, go ahead and use cogent. But if packet
> loss makes your access useless, then avoid them if it all possible.
> YMMV.
> >
> > 
> > Matthew Huff | 1 Manhattanville Rd
> > Director of Operations   | Purchase, NY 10577
> > OTA Management LLC   | Phone: 914-460-4039
> > aim: matthewbhuff| Fax:   914-694-5669
> >
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Matthew D. Hardeman [mailto:mharde...@ipifony.com]
> >> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 1:41 PM
> >> To: Matthew Huff <mh...@ox.com>
> >> Cc: William Herrin <b...@herrin.us>; James Milko <jmi...@gmail.com>;
> >> nanog@nanog.org
> >> Subject: Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun
> >>
> >> I would have concurred on this not so very long ago, but Cogent has
> made
> >> serious strides in improving this.
> >>
> >> In particular, I think Cogent is fairly trustworthy to at least AT
> and
> >> Verizon at this point.
> >>
> >> As for Charter, Comcast, Cox, and the like, I’ve come to believe that
> >> there’s really no substitute for direct interconnection to those guys
> if
> >> they’re part of the market you serve.
> >>
> >> My clients are mostly ISPs and ITSPs and for the over-the-top ITSPs,
> if
> >> they’re serving clients whose broadband access is one of the major
> cable
> >> providers, I always encourage the client to establish a BGP session
> >> directly into that provider (whether purchasing enterprise transit
> from
> >> them, but just accepting customer routes and advertising with a no-
> >> export prefix or formal paid peering, etc.)
> >>
> >> The impact that it has on service quality is measurable and it’s a
> >> significant impact in many cases.
> >>
> >>> On Mar 14, 2016, at 9:58 AM, Matthew Huff <mh...@ox.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> One caveat about Cogent even as a third or extra provider.
> >>>
> >>> Because of disputes with eyeball networks, there is significant
> >> congestion at peering points with Cogent. We saw consistent 5-10%
> packet
> >> loss over many months traversing Cogent through to Charger, Cox and
> >> Verizon as well as others. For web access and even streaming video,
> with
> >> buffers, this might not be an issue. But for corporate use with VOIP
> >> and/or VPNs, it was a killer. We had to cancel our Cogent service and
> >&

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Matthew D. Hardeman]

I understand.  I tend to take a more market by market view of each network 
rather than a global perspective.  Clearly, for the enterprise use case with a 
diversity of users spread across the globe, or even nationally, the use case is 
a bit different.

Having said that, I am rather terribly curious...  I’ve not really seen any of 
the major national non-eyeballs who didn’t have congestion at some peering 
points to major eyeball networks for not insignificant periods. 

Which transit have you found to be the very best for minimizing those concerns 
in the general case?


> On Mar 14, 2016, at 1:23 PM, Matthew Huff <mh...@ox.com> wrote:
> 
> We don't serve a market. We are a private business. We are multi-homed with 
> multiple providers, none of which is an eyeball network. Even if we wanted to 
> peer, most of them are not available in our area, but our the only choice for 
> some of our employees.
> 
> Cogent still has congestion issues at various peering points as has been 
> reported in this and other mailing lists recently. Like I said, if VOIP and 
> VPN aren't an issue, go ahead and use cogent. But if packet loss makes your 
> access useless, then avoid them if it all possible. YMMV.
> 
> 
> Matthew Huff | 1 Manhattanville Rd
> Director of Operations   | Purchase, NY 10577
> OTA Management LLC   | Phone: 914-460-4039
> aim: matthewbhuff| Fax:   914-694-5669
> 
> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Matthew D. Hardeman [mailto:mharde...@ipifony.com]
>> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 1:41 PM
>> To: Matthew Huff <mh...@ox.com>
>> Cc: William Herrin <b...@herrin.us>; James Milko <jmi...@gmail.com>;
>> nanog@nanog.org
>> Subject: Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun
>> 
>> I would have concurred on this not so very long ago, but Cogent has made
>> serious strides in improving this.
>> 
>> In particular, I think Cogent is fairly trustworthy to at least AT and
>> Verizon at this point.
>> 
>> As for Charter, Comcast, Cox, and the like, I’ve come to believe that
>> there’s really no substitute for direct interconnection to those guys if
>> they’re part of the market you serve.
>> 
>> My clients are mostly ISPs and ITSPs and for the over-the-top ITSPs, if
>> they’re serving clients whose broadband access is one of the major cable
>> providers, I always encourage the client to establish a BGP session
>> directly into that provider (whether purchasing enterprise transit from
>> them, but just accepting customer routes and advertising with a no-
>> export prefix or formal paid peering, etc.)
>> 
>> The impact that it has on service quality is measurable and it’s a
>> significant impact in many cases.
>> 
>>> On Mar 14, 2016, at 9:58 AM, Matthew Huff <mh...@ox.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> One caveat about Cogent even as a third or extra provider.
>>> 
>>> Because of disputes with eyeball networks, there is significant
>> congestion at peering points with Cogent. We saw consistent 5-10% packet
>> loss over many months traversing Cogent through to Charger, Cox and
>> Verizon as well as others. For web access and even streaming video, with
>> buffers, this might not be an issue. But for corporate use with VOIP
>> and/or VPNs, it was a killer. We had to cancel our Cogent service and
>> work with our remaining providers to de-preference Cogent completely.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Matthew Huff | 1 Manhattanville Rd
>>> Director of Operations   | Purchase, NY 10577
>>> OTA Management LLC   | Phone: 914-460-4039
>>> aim: matthewbhuff| Fax:   914-694-5669
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> -Original Message-
>>>> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of William
>> Herrin
>>>> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 10:47 AM
>>>> To: James Milko <jmi...@gmail.com>
>>>> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
>>>> Subject: Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun
>>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 9:14 AM, James Milko <jmi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 8:32 PM, William Herrin <b...@herrin.us>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> At the very least, no one who is clueful about "The Internet" is
>>>>>> single-homed to Cogent with any protocol.
>>>>> 
>>>>> s/single-homed/dual-homed/
>>>>> 
>>>>> It's not like losing Google/HE because your other transit dropped is
>>>>> acceptable.
>>>> 
>>>> Hi James,
>>>> 
>>>> Cogent is effective at reducing cost as the third or subsequent
>> provider
>>>> in one's mix.
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Bill Herrin
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
>>>> Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
> 



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

RE: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Matthew Huff]

We don't serve a market. We are a private business. We are multi-homed with 
multiple providers, none of which is an eyeball network. Even if we wanted to 
peer, most of them are not available in our area, but our the only choice for 
some of our employees.

Cogent still has congestion issues at various peering points as has been 
reported in this and other mailing lists recently. Like I said, if VOIP and VPN 
aren't an issue, go ahead and use cogent. But if packet loss makes your access 
useless, then avoid them if it all possible. YMMV.


Matthew Huff | 1 Manhattanville Rd
Director of Operations   | Purchase, NY 10577
OTA Management LLC   | Phone: 914-460-4039
aim: matthewbhuff    | Fax:   914-694-5669


> -Original Message-
> From: Matthew D. Hardeman [mailto:mharde...@ipifony.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 1:41 PM
> To: Matthew Huff <mh...@ox.com>
> Cc: William Herrin <b...@herrin.us>; James Milko <jmi...@gmail.com>;
> nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun
> 
> I would have concurred on this not so very long ago, but Cogent has made
> serious strides in improving this.
> 
> In particular, I think Cogent is fairly trustworthy to at least AT and
> Verizon at this point.
> 
> As for Charter, Comcast, Cox, and the like, I’ve come to believe that
> there’s really no substitute for direct interconnection to those guys if
> they’re part of the market you serve.
> 
> My clients are mostly ISPs and ITSPs and for the over-the-top ITSPs, if
> they’re serving clients whose broadband access is one of the major cable
> providers, I always encourage the client to establish a BGP session
> directly into that provider (whether purchasing enterprise transit from
> them, but just accepting customer routes and advertising with a no-
> export prefix or formal paid peering, etc.)
> 
> The impact that it has on service quality is measurable and it’s a
> significant impact in many cases.
> 
> > On Mar 14, 2016, at 9:58 AM, Matthew Huff <mh...@ox.com> wrote:
> >
> > One caveat about Cogent even as a third or extra provider.
> >
> > Because of disputes with eyeball networks, there is significant
> congestion at peering points with Cogent. We saw consistent 5-10% packet
> loss over many months traversing Cogent through to Charger, Cox and
> Verizon as well as others. For web access and even streaming video, with
> buffers, this might not be an issue. But for corporate use with VOIP
> and/or VPNs, it was a killer. We had to cancel our Cogent service and
> work with our remaining providers to de-preference Cogent completely.
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> > Matthew Huff | 1 Manhattanville Rd
> > Director of Operations   | Purchase, NY 10577
> > OTA Management LLC   | Phone: 914-460-4039
> > aim: matthewbhuff| Fax:   914-694-5669
> >
> >
> >> -Original Message-----
> >> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of William
> Herrin
> >> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 10:47 AM
> >> To: James Milko <jmi...@gmail.com>
> >> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> >> Subject: Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun
> >>
> >> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 9:14 AM, James Milko <jmi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 8:32 PM, William Herrin <b...@herrin.us>
> >> wrote:
> >>>> At the very least, no one who is clueful about "The Internet" is
> >>>> single-homed to Cogent with any protocol.
> >>>
> >>> s/single-homed/dual-homed/
> >>>
> >>> It's not like losing Google/HE because your other transit dropped is
> >>> acceptable.
> >>
> >> Hi James,
> >>
> >> Cogent is effective at reducing cost as the third or subsequent
> provider
> >> in one's mix.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Bill Herrin
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
> >> Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Matthew D. Hardeman]

I would have concurred on this not so very long ago, but Cogent has made 
serious strides in improving this.

In particular, I think Cogent is fairly trustworthy to at least AT and 
Verizon at this point.

As for Charter, Comcast, Cox, and the like, I’ve come to believe that there’s 
really no substitute for direct interconnection to those guys if they’re part 
of the market you serve.

My clients are mostly ISPs and ITSPs and for the over-the-top ITSPs, if they’re 
serving clients whose broadband access is one of the major cable providers, I 
always encourage the client to establish a BGP session directly into that 
provider (whether purchasing enterprise transit from them, but just accepting 
customer routes and advertising with a no-export prefix or formal paid peering, 
etc.)

The impact that it has on service quality is measurable and it’s a significant 
impact in many cases.

> On Mar 14, 2016, at 9:58 AM, Matthew Huff <mh...@ox.com> wrote:
> 
> One caveat about Cogent even as a third or extra provider.
> 
> Because of disputes with eyeball networks, there is significant congestion at 
> peering points with Cogent. We saw consistent 5-10% packet loss over many 
> months traversing Cogent through to Charger, Cox and Verizon as well as 
> others. For web access and even streaming video, with buffers, this might not 
> be an issue. But for corporate use with VOIP and/or VPNs, it was a killer. We 
> had to cancel our Cogent service and work with our remaining providers to 
> de-preference Cogent completely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew Huff | 1 Manhattanville Rd
> Director of Operations   | Purchase, NY 10577
> OTA Management LLC   | Phone: 914-460-4039
> aim: matthewbhuff| Fax:   914-694-5669
> 
> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of William Herrin
>> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 10:47 AM
>> To: James Milko <jmi...@gmail.com>
>> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
>> Subject: Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun
>> 
>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 9:14 AM, James Milko <jmi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 8:32 PM, William Herrin <b...@herrin.us>
>> wrote:
>>>> At the very least, no one who is clueful about "The Internet" is
>>>> single-homed to Cogent with any protocol.
>>> 
>>> s/single-homed/dual-homed/
>>> 
>>> It's not like losing Google/HE because your other transit dropped is
>>> acceptable.
>> 
>> Hi James,
>> 
>> Cogent is effective at reducing cost as the third or subsequent provider
>> in one's mix.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Bill Herrin
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
>> Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

RE: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Matthew Huff]

One caveat about Cogent even as a third or extra provider.

Because of disputes with eyeball networks, there is significant congestion at 
peering points with Cogent. We saw consistent 5-10% packet loss over many 
months traversing Cogent through to Charger, Cox and Verizon as well as others. 
For web access and even streaming video, with buffers, this might not be an 
issue. But for corporate use with VOIP and/or VPNs, it was a killer. We had to 
cancel our Cogent service and work with our remaining providers to 
de-preference Cogent completely.




Matthew Huff | 1 Manhattanville Rd
Director of Operations   | Purchase, NY 10577
OTA Management LLC   | Phone: 914-460-4039
aim: matthewbhuff    | Fax:   914-694-5669


> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of William Herrin
> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 10:47 AM
> To: James Milko <jmi...@gmail.com>
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun
> 
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 9:14 AM, James Milko <jmi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 8:32 PM, William Herrin <b...@herrin.us>
> wrote:
> >> At the very least, no one who is clueful about "The Internet" is
> >> single-homed to Cogent with any protocol.
> >
> > s/single-homed/dual-homed/
> >
> > It's not like losing Google/HE because your other transit dropped is
> > acceptable.
> 
> Hi James,
> 
> Cogent is effective at reducing cost as the third or subsequent provider
> in one's mix.
> 
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
> 
> 
> --
> William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
> Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[William Herrin]

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 9:14 AM, James Milko  wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 8:32 PM, William Herrin  wrote:
>> At the very least, no one who is clueful about "The Internet" is
>> single-homed to Cogent with any protocol.
>
> s/single-homed/dual-homed/
>
> It's not like losing Google/HE because your other transit dropped is
> acceptable.

Hi James,

Cogent is effective at reducing cost as the third or subsequent
provider in one's mix.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


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

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[James Milko]

On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 8:32 PM, William Herrin  wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Doug Barton  wrote:
> > No one who is serious about IPv6 is single-homed to Cogent. Arguably, no
> one
> > who is serious about "The Internet" is single-homed on either protocol.
>
> At the very least, no one who is clueful about "The Internet" is
> single-homed to Cogent with any protocol.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
> --
> William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
> Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: 
>

s/single-homed/dual-homed/

It's not like losing Google/HE because your other transit dropped is
acceptable.

JM

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[William Herrin]

On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Doug Barton  wrote:
> No one who is serious about IPv6 is single-homed to Cogent. Arguably, no one
> who is serious about "The Internet" is single-homed on either protocol.

At the very least, no one who is clueful about "The Internet" is
single-homed to Cogent with any protocol.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


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

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Baldur Norddahl]

On 13 March 2016 at 19:20, Matthew Kaufman  wrote:

> I come to the opposite conclusion - that this situation can persist with
> apparently no business impact to either party shows that IPv6 is still
> unnecessary.
>

It does in fact have business impact on Cogent (but not Google). It means
that some Cogent customers, like us, that are multihomed no longer will
take in any Google IPv6 traffic via Cogent. This means we will be upgrading
other transits before we upgrade Cogent. Cogent will simply have less bytes
to sell to us.

This effect will be most profound in markets with eyeball networks that
implement IPv6.

On the other hand, Cogent might not know what they are missing out on. Our
traffic growth will mask the fact that they lost some revenue here.

It might also be that we did already get the Google traffic on a different
circuit and therefore nothing changed. But Cogent has many customers, so
there has to be some that just moved their IPv6 google traffic to other
transits as result of this.

Regards,

Baldur

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Owen DeLong]

> On Mar 11, 2016, at 11:50 , Damien Burke  wrote:
> 
> Just received an updated statement from cogent support:
> 
> "We appreciate your concerns. This is a known issue that originates with 
> Google as it is up to their discretion as to how they announce routes to us 
> v4 or v6. 
> 
> Once again, apologies for any inconvenience."
> 
> And:
> 
> "The SLA does not cover route transit beyond our network. We cannot route to 
> IPs that are not announced to us by the IP owner, directly or through a 
> network peer."
> 

Which is a cute way of leaving out “However, since we refuse to accept them 
directly peering with us…”

Owen

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Doug Barton]

s/IPv6/Cogent/  :)

No one who is serious about IPv6 is single-homed to Cogent. Arguably, no 
one who is serious about "The Internet" is single-homed on either protocol.


Thus your conclusion seems to be more like wishful thinking. :)

Doug


On 03/13/2016 11:20 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:

I come to the opposite conclusion - that this situation can persist with 
apparently no business impact to either party shows that IPv6 is still 
unnecessary.

Matthew Kaufman

(Sent from my iPhone)


On Mar 13, 2016, at 7:31 AM, Dennis Burgess <dmburg...@linktechs.net> wrote:

In the end, google has made a choice. I think these kinds of choices will delay 
IPv6 adoption.

-Original Message-
From: Damien Burke [mailto:dam...@supremebytes.com]
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 2:51 PM
To: Mark Tinka <mark.ti...@seacom.mu>; Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com>; Dennis Burgess 
<dmburg...@linktechs.net>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: RE: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

Just received an updated statement from cogent support:

"We appreciate your concerns. This is a known issue that originates with Google 
as it is up to their discretion as to how they announce routes to us v4 or v6.

Once again, apologies for any inconvenience."

And:

"The SLA does not cover route transit beyond our network. We cannot route to IPs 
that are not announced to us by the IP owner, directly or through a network peer."

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Matthew Kaufman]

I come to the opposite conclusion - that this situation can persist with 
apparently no business impact to either party shows that IPv6 is still 
unnecessary.

Matthew Kaufman

(Sent from my iPhone)

> On Mar 13, 2016, at 7:31 AM, Dennis Burgess <dmburg...@linktechs.net> wrote:
> 
> In the end, google has made a choice. I think these kinds of choices will 
> delay IPv6 adoption.  
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Damien Burke [mailto:dam...@supremebytes.com] 
> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 2:51 PM
> To: Mark Tinka <mark.ti...@seacom.mu>; Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com>; Dennis 
> Burgess <dmburg...@linktechs.net>
> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
> Subject: RE: Cogent - Google - HE Fun
> 
> Just received an updated statement from cogent support:
> 
> "We appreciate your concerns. This is a known issue that originates with 
> Google as it is up to their discretion as to how they announce routes to us 
> v4 or v6. 
> 
> Once again, apologies for any inconvenience."
> 
> And:
> 
> "The SLA does not cover route transit beyond our network. We cannot route to 
> IPs that are not announced to us by the IP owner, directly or through a 
> network peer."
> 

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[joel jaeggli]

On 3/13/16 7:31 AM, Dennis Burgess wrote:
> In the end, google has made a choice. I think these kinds of choices will 
> delay IPv6 adoption.  

Given that they publish  records for a great deal of their services
I'm not sure how you would conclude that.

> -Original Message-
> From: Damien Burke [mailto:dam...@supremebytes.com] 
> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 2:51 PM
> To: Mark Tinka <mark.ti...@seacom.mu>; Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com>; Dennis 
> Burgess <dmburg...@linktechs.net>
> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
> Subject: RE: Cogent - Google - HE Fun
> 
> Just received an updated statement from cogent support:
> 
> "We appreciate your concerns. This is a known issue that originates with 
> Google as it is up to their discretion as to how they announce routes to us 
> v4 or v6. 
> 
> Once again, apologies for any inconvenience."
> 
> And:
> 
> "The SLA does not cover route transit beyond our network. We cannot route to 
> IPs that are not announced to us by the IP owner, directly or through a 
> network peer."
> 
> 




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

RE: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Dennis Burgess]

In the end, google has made a choice. I think these kinds of choices will delay 
IPv6 adoption.  

-Original Message-
From: Damien Burke [mailto:dam...@supremebytes.com] 
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 2:51 PM
To: Mark Tinka <mark.ti...@seacom.mu>; Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com>; Dennis 
Burgess <dmburg...@linktechs.net>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: RE: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

Just received an updated statement from cogent support:

"We appreciate your concerns. This is a known issue that originates with Google 
as it is up to their discretion as to how they announce routes to us v4 or v6. 

Once again, apologies for any inconvenience."

And:

"The SLA does not cover route transit beyond our network. We cannot route to 
IPs that are not announced to us by the IP owner, directly or through a network 
peer."

RE: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Damien Burke]

Just received an updated statement from cogent support:

"We appreciate your concerns. This is a known issue that originates with Google 
as it is up to their discretion as to how they announce routes to us v4 or v6. 

Once again, apologies for any inconvenience."

And:

"The SLA does not cover route transit beyond our network. We cannot route to 
IPs that are not announced to us by the IP owner, directly or through a network 
peer."

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Owen DeLong]

> On Mar 11, 2016, at 06:16 , William Herrin  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 7:40 AM, Jon Lewis  wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2016, William Herrin wrote:
>>> It's Cogent's fault because: double-billing. Google should not have to
>>> pay Cogent for a service which you have already paid Cogent to provide
>>> to you. Cogent's demand is unethical. They intentionally fail to
>>> deliver on the basic service expectation you pay them for and refuse
>>> to do so unless a third party to your contract also pays them.
>> 
>> That's one way of looking at it.
>> 
>> However, which of your transits don't bill for bits exchanged with other
>> customers of theirs...and how are they or you accounting for that traffic?
> 
> Hi Jon,
> 
> As you know, there is a technology limitation in how routing works
> which says that for any given block of addresses you can, absent
> extraordinary measures, have a peering relationship or a transit
> relationship but not both. If both parties choose to have a transit

Not really.

If you have both, then there’s no easy way to guarantee that you get
paid for every piece of transit (though relatively simple localpref
tactics will actually make it likely that you also get paid for
many bits of peering).

> relationship, that excludes a peering relationship for the relevant
> blocks of addresses. And that's OK when _both sides_ choose it.

Your premise is flawed.

> In related news, no ethical conundrum demands defiance of the law of gravity.

True, but gravity is real. Your law of peering vs. transit above is
purely artificial and fails utterly if you don’t accept that an approximation
of which bits fall into which category is “close enough” for billing
purposes.

I’m not making any value judgments on whether accepting that idea is good
or bad. I know that there are networks that act in various ways on both
sides of this idea.

However, equating it to “the law of gravity” is rather silly given that it
is 100% mutable if we take the accounting out of the picture.

No amount of monetary policy change can counteract gravity.

Owen

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Owen DeLong]

> On Mar 11, 2016, at 04:57 , Dave Bell  wrote:
> 
> On 10 March 2016 at 15:55, William Herrin  wrote:
>> It's Cogent's fault because: double-billing. Google should not have to
>> pay Cogent for a service which you have already paid Cogent to provide
>> to you. Cogent's demand is unethical. They intentionally fail to
>> deliver on the basic service expectation you pay them for and refuse
>> to do so unless a third party to your contract also pays them.
>> 
>> Google, by contrast, makes no demand that Cogent pay them even though
>> you are not paying Google for service. They offer "open peering," a
>> free interconnect via many neutral data centers.
> 
> I don't get this. Google are basically a hosting provider. If I set up
> my own website, I would expect to have to pay transit for it. If I ran
> a hosting business I would expect to pay transit. Why are google
> different?

No matter what kind of business I build, I don’t expect to pay transit
unless I am asking you to deliver packets to people who are not already
paying you.

Yes, if I make that request, I may also be paying transit for packets that
go to some or all of the users that are already paying you, but I would
expect in most cases, that is an artifact.

If I have content that your paying customers want and your paying customers
have enough demand for my content that it would fill one or more
interconnection-sized pipes (whatever your standard minimum interconnect
is, be that 1G, 10G, 100G, etc.), then I think it is reasonable to ask
for settlement free peering to reach those customers. If there isn’t
enough demand from your customers to justify that, then there are a few
other possibilities… Exchange points in common and public peering,
I give up on those customers, or, I pay you (or someone else) for transit.

I’m pretty sure in the case of Cogent<->Google the traffic level more than
justifies a reasonable number of PNIs in a diversity of locations.
 
> Its Google's decision to decide not to pay for transit for v6.
> Considering how open they are to peering, and how large their network
> it, it probably makes a lot of sense. If you need to connect to a
> transit provider, you can probably peer with google at the same
> location.

Depends on how you connect to said transit provider, but yeah, you can
either peer with Google yourself, or, you should be able to expect that
anyone you are paying for transit peers with Google as part of providing
you transit service to “the internet”.

It’s very hard to make a case that “Internet Access” can be sold if that
doesn’t include access to Google.

> Cogent is in the business of trying to provide transit. I understand
> there are probably good business cases where you may want to set up an
> SFI with someone like google, but at the end of the day that's their
> choice.

Sure, it’s their choice, but in so doing, there’s a valid case to be
made that they are not providing the contracted service to their transit
customers.

I don’t think anyone is saying “Cogent can’t do this”. I think we are
saying “Cogent’s customers may want to consider their rights and their
contracts with Cogent in this process.”

> I get the arguments that Cogent are supposed to be supplying a full
> view of the DFZ, but if Joe's Hosting Company refuses to pay anyone
> for transit, surely it is their own fault that their reachability is
> compromised?

Yes and no… How many of the Alexa 10, 50, 100, 500, 1000 are hosted
at Joe’s?

I think those numbers are a bit different from Google and like it or not,
there’s meaning to that.

Owen

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Jay R. Ashworth]

- Original Message -
> From: "Mark Andrews" 

> I don't think anyone should be colluding to hurt Cogent or anyone
> else for that matter and this thread appears to be heading in this
> direction.

I suspect a distinction could be made in court by a competent attorney between

"colluding to hurt Cogent"

and

"collaborating to keep Cogent's ill-chosen policies from hurting the utility 
of the greater Internet".

The Law does not guarantee *any* business the unsullied right to conduct its
business in any particular way and expect that always to work; companies
much newer than buggy-whip manufacturers have long since learned that.

[ I am not an attorney; if my advice breaks something, you get to keep both 
pieces. ]

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 1274

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Christopher Morrow]

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Robert Jacobs  wrote:
> Don't like what Cogent is doing but just to bring this back to reality 
> Matthew and others out there... What content do you think Google has or any 
> other big content provider that is IPV6 only or gives an IPV6 only response 
> to a query from Cogent that would not work
via normal IPV4 routes and IP's.. Till we have exclusive content on
IPV6 or it is a shorter,

it's not relevant (really) that 'you can still get there over v4',
because if your clients have ipv6, they'll ask for both, not
everything happy-eyeballs it's way to success, so
timeouts/frustration/pain occur.

I bet that's where the OP's original questions stem.

-chris

RE: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Robert Jacobs]

Don't like what Cogent is doing but just to bring this back to reality Matthew 
and others out there... What content do you think Google has or any other big 
content provider that is IPV6 only or gives an IPV6 only response to a query 
from Cogent that would not work via normal IPV4 routes and IP's.. Till we have 
exclusive content on IPV6 or it is a shorter, faster, bigger, better path then 
we are still fighting this uphill battle to get more adoption of IPV6 and it 
will not matter to the majority of Cogent customers that they can't get full 
IPV6 routes and connections from Cogent.

Robert Jacobs | Network Architect Director

Direct:  832-615-7742
Main:   832-615-8000
Fax:713-510-1650

5959 Corporate Dr. Suite 3300; Houston, TX 77036



 

 

-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Matthew D. Hardeman
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 4:54 PM
To: Mark Andrews <ma...@isc.org>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

Mark,

I certainly agree that intentional harm of a purely malicious nature is to be 
discouraged.

What I proposed, as an alternative to some of the more extreme mechanisms being 
discussed, is a mechanism whereby IPv6 _customers_ of Cogent transit 
services--and who also receive IPv6 transit from at least one other 
relationship--can modify their IPv6 advertisements to Cogent such that they 
utilize that transit link with Cogent for the one thing you can reliably count 
on it for in the IPv6 world: reaching other Cogent IPv6 customers, especially 
the single-homed ones.

In essence, adding BGP community “174:3000” to your IPv6 advertisements to 
Cogent instructs Cogent that this route should only be advertised internal to 
Cogent and to Cogent’s customers.  It should not be announced to peers.  
Combining that with prepends of your own AS in the IPv6 advertisements to 
Cogent also reduces traffic from other multi-homed Cogent IPv6 customers.  In 
any event, if enough Cogent customers do this, it does greatly reduce the 
amount of traffic that Cogent gets to transit from their various IPv6 peers 
while still avoiding harm to innocent end-users (or for that matter, to guilty 
end users).

The mechanism I proposed has numerous benefits:

1.  It utilizes only a mechanism created by Cogent and documented for use by 
Cogent transit customers to achieve routing policy that benefits IPv6 customers 
of Cogent.
2.  It causes no harm to single-homed Cogent customers.
3.  It causes no direct harm to Cogent.  The sole indirect harm that it might 
bring upon Cogent if adopted en-masse would be to significantly drop the amount 
of traffic crossing Cogent’s SFI peerings on IPv6, which I acknowledge may have 
consequences for Cogent.  If it did have such consequences, it’s Cogent’s game 
and Cogent’s rules.  They could change it any time.  If it indirectly harms 
Cogent by lowering overall traffic volume on paid multi-homed customer transit 
connections, Cogent could easily remedy that by becoming an IPv6 network that 
one would want to exchange IPv6 transit traffic with rather than being an IPv6 
network that one begrudgingly pays because one does business with others who 
are Cogent single-homed.

I do reiterate, however, that I would strongly discourage any kind of routing 
tricks that leave the innocent Cogent customers out in the cold.  That hurts 
those Cogent customers as well as you and/or your own customers and users.  
Please, someone, think of the end-users here.

My advice to Cogent would be to remember something real simple:  When Big Boss 
#1 at RandomCorp has no trouble reaching Google services all night every night 
at home and then he comes to work and his office Internet does everything but 
Google….  What he’ll remember is “Charter works with Google, whoever we’re 
using at the office doesn’t.  Let’s switch.”  It’s shocking to me that an ISP 
with a retail segment thinks you can survive if Google doesn’t work, no matter 
what Google did to ensure it played out that way.  Frankly, Google could scream 
that they cut Cogent off because they didn’t like Cogent’s face and no one at 
retail would care.  They just want their Gmail back.  If Google wanted to force 
the issue faster, they could just stop the IPv4 transit routes to Cogent.  I 
think they’re taking a more balanced and conservative approach though.

Thanks,

Matt Hardeman

> On Mar 10, 2016, at 4:29 PM, Mark Andrews <ma...@isc.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone should be colluding to hurt Cogent or anyone
> else for that matter and this thread appears to be heading in this
> direction.
> 
> Mark
> -- 
> Mark Andrews, ISC
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Mark Tinka]

On 10/Mar/16 17:51, Owen DeLong wrote:

> I think it’s a little different from what you say…
>
> I think Google already reaches Cogent for IPv4 via transit.
>
> Google, long ago, announced that they would not be purchasing IPv6 transit 
> and that they have an open peering policy for anyone who wishes to reach 
> them. In order to avoid significant disruption, they haven’t terminated their 
> IPv4 transit contracts, but it certainly makes sense that they would not be 
> pursuing IPv6 transit contracts.

Understandable, but sort of moot if interconnect ports are dual-stack
and there are no discrete charges for IPv4 or IPv6.

Of course, if removal of IPv6 traffic saves bandwidth and operational
costs for Google interconnect with Cogent, then that makes sense to do.

Mark.

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Matthew D. Hardeman]

Freddy,

As there is no IPv6 transit between HE and Cogent, this would have the effect 
of isolating ones network services from the single-homed customers of Cogent.  
I’m not sure that many of us could get away with that.  Further, I’m not sure 
that it’s appropriate to punish the single-homed Cogent customers.  I’ll grant, 
this is just what Google has done, but they’re well positioned to weather that 
storm and have a level of visibility and brand loyalty that will allow them to 
have a chance of success at it.

I think the softer approach of reducing the relevancy of Cogent’s IPv6 transit 
service and indeed the relevancy of peering with Cogent for IPv6 is a way 
forward that more of us could get behind.

Thanks,

Matt Hardeman

> On Mar 10, 2016, at 4:42 PM, Fredy Kuenzler  wrote:
> 
> This would work for those which are using IPv6 transit from Cogent.
> 
> For anyone else which is using IPv6 transit from Hurricane Electric and some 
> other suppliers such as L3 or NTT: to set the community 'do not announce to 
> Cogent' only on every other transit but HE would help to isolate Cogent 
> without much collateral damage. It would support Google/HE's position. And 
> maybe help to bring back Cogent onto a cooperative track, after all.
> 
> --
> Fredy Kuenzler
> Init7 (Switzerland) Ltd.
> St.-Georgen-Strasse 70
> CH-8400 Winterthur
> Switzerland
> 
> http://www.init7.net/
> 
> 
>> Am 10.03.2016 um 23:19 schrieb Matthew D. Hardeman :
>> 
>> I have contemplated whether such mechanisms matter to Cogent, etc.
>> 
>> I’m inclined to think that if Google is willing to pull the routes and they 
>> still don’t blink, then certainly us smaller shops aren’t going to impact 
>> them…
>> 
>> However…  If enough prefixes disappear from the _apparent_ Cogent table as 
>> viewed by outsiders, this may ultimately impact their sales of new 
>> interconnection….
>> 
>> For those of us multihomed with Cogent and other transit providers on IPv6 
>> there is a less drastic way to impact the perceived value of Cogent’s IPv6 
>> routing table to outsiders and especially to Cogent’s peers — and one that 
>> still doesn’t negatively impact the single-home customers of Cogent:
>> 
>> "set community 174:3000" on your IPv6 advertisement to Cogent.  This will 
>> constrain the advertisement to Cogent and Cogent’s customers only.  For good 
>> measure, prepend your own AS to this advertisement at least a couple of 
>> times, potentially discouraging even Cogent customers who see the route from 
>> using it if they have other transit.  It will prevent the path via Cogent 
>> being selected by Cogent IPv6 peers versus your other transit providers.
>> 
>> 
>>> On Mar 10, 2016, at 3:47 PM, Fredy Kuenzler  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Am 10.03.2016 um 22:25 schrieb Damien Burke :
 Anyone who is multihomed with cogent ipv6 in their mix should shutdown 
 their IPv6 bgp session. Let’s see if we can make their graph freefall.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Alternative:
>>> 
>>> set community [do not announce to Cogent]
>>> 
>>> *SCNR*
>> 



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Matthew D. Hardeman]

Mark,

I certainly agree that intentional harm of a purely malicious nature is to be 
discouraged.

What I proposed, as an alternative to some of the more extreme mechanisms being 
discussed, is a mechanism whereby IPv6 _customers_ of Cogent transit 
services--and who also receive IPv6 transit from at least one other 
relationship--can modify their IPv6 advertisements to Cogent such that they 
utilize that transit link with Cogent for the one thing you can reliably count 
on it for in the IPv6 world: reaching other Cogent IPv6 customers, especially 
the single-homed ones.

In essence, adding BGP community “174:3000” to your IPv6 advertisements to 
Cogent instructs Cogent that this route should only be advertised internal to 
Cogent and to Cogent’s customers.  It should not be announced to peers.  
Combining that with prepends of your own AS in the IPv6 advertisements to 
Cogent also reduces traffic from other multi-homed Cogent IPv6 customers.  In 
any event, if enough Cogent customers do this, it does greatly reduce the 
amount of traffic that Cogent gets to transit from their various IPv6 peers 
while still avoiding harm to innocent end-users (or for that matter, to guilty 
end users).

The mechanism I proposed has numerous benefits:

1.  It utilizes only a mechanism created by Cogent and documented for use by 
Cogent transit customers to achieve routing policy that benefits IPv6 customers 
of Cogent.
2.  It causes no harm to single-homed Cogent customers.
3.  It causes no direct harm to Cogent.  The sole indirect harm that it might 
bring upon Cogent if adopted en-masse would be to significantly drop the amount 
of traffic crossing Cogent’s SFI peerings on IPv6, which I acknowledge may have 
consequences for Cogent.  If it did have such consequences, it’s Cogent’s game 
and Cogent’s rules.  They could change it any time.  If it indirectly harms 
Cogent by lowering overall traffic volume on paid multi-homed customer transit 
connections, Cogent could easily remedy that by becoming an IPv6 network that 
one would want to exchange IPv6 transit traffic with rather than being an IPv6 
network that one begrudgingly pays because one does business with others who 
are Cogent single-homed.

I do reiterate, however, that I would strongly discourage any kind of routing 
tricks that leave the innocent Cogent customers out in the cold.  That hurts 
those Cogent customers as well as you and/or your own customers and users.  
Please, someone, think of the end-users here.

My advice to Cogent would be to remember something real simple:  When Big Boss 
#1 at RandomCorp has no trouble reaching Google services all night every night 
at home and then he comes to work and his office Internet does everything but 
Google….  What he’ll remember is “Charter works with Google, whoever we’re 
using at the office doesn’t.  Let’s switch.”  It’s shocking to me that an ISP 
with a retail segment thinks you can survive if Google doesn’t work, no matter 
what Google did to ensure it played out that way.  Frankly, Google could scream 
that they cut Cogent off because they didn’t like Cogent’s face and no one at 
retail would care.  They just want their Gmail back.  If Google wanted to force 
the issue faster, they could just stop the IPv4 transit routes to Cogent.  I 
think they’re taking a more balanced and conservative approach though.

Thanks,

Matt Hardeman

> On Mar 10, 2016, at 4:29 PM, Mark Andrews  wrote:
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone should be colluding to hurt Cogent or anyone
> else for that matter and this thread appears to be heading in this
> direction.
> 
> Mark
> -- 
> Mark Andrews, ISC
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Fredy Kuenzler]

This would work for those which are using IPv6 transit from Cogent.

For anyone else which is using IPv6 transit from Hurricane Electric and some 
other suppliers such as L3 or NTT: to set the community 'do not announce to 
Cogent' only on every other transit but HE would help to isolate Cogent without 
much collateral damage. It would support Google/HE's position. And maybe help 
to bring back Cogent onto a cooperative track, after all.

--
Fredy Kuenzler
Init7 (Switzerland) Ltd.
St.-Georgen-Strasse 70
CH-8400 Winterthur
Switzerland

http://www.init7.net/


> Am 10.03.2016 um 23:19 schrieb Matthew D. Hardeman :
> 
> I have contemplated whether such mechanisms matter to Cogent, etc.
> 
> I’m inclined to think that if Google is willing to pull the routes and they 
> still don’t blink, then certainly us smaller shops aren’t going to impact 
> them…
> 
> However…  If enough prefixes disappear from the _apparent_ Cogent table as 
> viewed by outsiders, this may ultimately impact their sales of new 
> interconnection….
> 
> For those of us multihomed with Cogent and other transit providers on IPv6 
> there is a less drastic way to impact the perceived value of Cogent’s IPv6 
> routing table to outsiders and especially to Cogent’s peers — and one that 
> still doesn’t negatively impact the single-home customers of Cogent:
> 
> "set community 174:3000" on your IPv6 advertisement to Cogent.  This will 
> constrain the advertisement to Cogent and Cogent’s customers only.  For good 
> measure, prepend your own AS to this advertisement at least a couple of 
> times, potentially discouraging even Cogent customers who see the route from 
> using it if they have other transit.  It will prevent the path via Cogent 
> being selected by Cogent IPv6 peers versus your other transit providers.
> 
> 
>> On Mar 10, 2016, at 3:47 PM, Fredy Kuenzler  wrote:
>> 
>> Am 10.03.2016 um 22:25 schrieb Damien Burke :
>>> Anyone who is multihomed with cogent ipv6 in their mix should shutdown 
>>> their IPv6 bgp session. Let’s see if we can make their graph freefall.
>> 
>> 
>> Alternative:
>> 
>> set community [do not announce to Cogent]
>> 
>> *SCNR*
> 

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Mark Andrews]

I don't think anyone should be colluding to hurt Cogent or anyone
else for that matter and this thread appears to be heading in this
direction.

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Matthew D. Hardeman]

I have contemplated whether such mechanisms matter to Cogent, etc.

I’m inclined to think that if Google is willing to pull the routes and they 
still don’t blink, then certainly us smaller shops aren’t going to impact them…

However…  If enough prefixes disappear from the _apparent_ Cogent table as 
viewed by outsiders, this may ultimately impact their sales of new 
interconnection….

For those of us multihomed with Cogent and other transit providers on IPv6 
there is a less drastic way to impact the perceived value of Cogent’s IPv6 
routing table to outsiders and especially to Cogent’s peers — and one that 
still doesn’t negatively impact the single-home customers of Cogent:

"set community 174:3000" on your IPv6 advertisement to Cogent.  This will 
constrain the advertisement to Cogent and Cogent’s customers only.  For good 
measure, prepend your own AS to this advertisement at least a couple of times, 
potentially discouraging even Cogent customers who see the route from using it 
if they have other transit.  It will prevent the path via Cogent being selected 
by Cogent IPv6 peers versus your other transit providers.


> On Mar 10, 2016, at 3:47 PM, Fredy Kuenzler  wrote:
> 
> Am 10.03.2016 um 22:25 schrieb Damien Burke :
>> Anyone who is multihomed with cogent ipv6 in their mix should shutdown their 
>> IPv6 bgp session. Let’s see if we can make their graph freefall.
> 
> 
> Alternative:
> 
> set community [do not announce to Cogent]
> 
> *SCNR*



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Stephen Frost]

* William Herrin (b...@herrin.us) wrote:
> Guys, that would be an important distinction if Cogent were providing
> Dennis with free service. They're not. Regardless of what Google does
> or doesn't do, Dennis pays Cogent to connect him to the wide Internet
> which emphatically includes Google. I'm sorry I said anything at all
> about Dennis' relationship with Google because that is immaterial to
> whether Cogent is honorably fulfilling its contract with Dennis.

Please tell me when I can get Verizon FiOS to agree that they're
supposed to provide me with access to the wide Internet, which includes
everything IPv6.

Thanks!

Stephen


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Owen DeLong]

> On Mar 10, 2016, at 09:29 , William Herrin  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Owen DeLong  wrote:
>>> On Mar 10, 2016, at 08:24 , Chris Adams  wrote:
>>> Once upon a time, Owen DeLong  said:
 In fairness, however, this is because he is not Google’s customer, he
 is Google’s product.
>>> 
>>> False supposition; Google does actually sell services as well.  $DAYJOB
>>> pays Google for services, and has paid Cogent for network access.
>> 
>> Not my assumption… Assumption included from Bill Herrin’s message…
>> 
>>> Google, by contrast, makes no demand that Cogent pay them even though
>>> you are not paying Google for service.
> 
> 
> Guys, that would be an important distinction if Cogent were providing
> Dennis with free service. They're not. Regardless of what Google does
> or doesn't do, Dennis pays Cogent to connect him to the wide Internet
> which emphatically includes Google. I'm sorry I said anything at all
> about Dennis' relationship with Google because that is immaterial to
> whether Cogent is honorably fulfilling its contract with Dennis.

Which doesn’t disagree with anything I said.

Owen

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[William Herrin]

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Owen DeLong  wrote:
>> On Mar 10, 2016, at 08:24 , Chris Adams  wrote:
>> Once upon a time, Owen DeLong  said:
>>> In fairness, however, this is because he is not Google’s customer, he
>>> is Google’s product.
>>
>> False supposition; Google does actually sell services as well.  $DAYJOB
>> pays Google for services, and has paid Cogent for network access.
>
> Not my assumption… Assumption included from Bill Herrin’s message…
>
>> Google, by contrast, makes no demand that Cogent pay them even though
>> you are not paying Google for service.


Guys, that would be an important distinction if Cogent were providing
Dennis with free service. They're not. Regardless of what Google does
or doesn't do, Dennis pays Cogent to connect him to the wide Internet
which emphatically includes Google. I'm sorry I said anything at all
about Dennis' relationship with Google because that is immaterial to
whether Cogent is honorably fulfilling its contract with Dennis.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


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

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Owen DeLong]

> On Mar 10, 2016, at 08:24 , Chris Adams  wrote:
> 
> Once upon a time, Owen DeLong  said:
>> In fairness, however, this is because he is not Google’s customer, he
>> is Google’s product. Google is selling him (well, information about him
>> anyway) to their customers. They gather this information by offering
>> certain things he wants in exchange for him allowing them to collect
>> and redistribute this data.
> 
> False supposition; Google does actually sell services as well.  $DAYJOB
> pays Google for services, and has paid Cogent for network access.

Not my assumption… Assumption included from Bill Herrin’s message…

> Google, by contrast, makes no demand that Cogent pay them even though
> you are not paying Google for service. 

(Underline added for emphasis)

Owen

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Chris Adams]

Once upon a time, Owen DeLong  said:
> In fairness, however, this is because he is not Google’s customer, he
> is Google’s product. Google is selling him (well, information about him
> anyway) to their customers. They gather this information by offering
> certain things he wants in exchange for him allowing them to collect
> and redistribute this data.

False supposition; Google does actually sell services as well.  $DAYJOB
pays Google for services, and has paid Cogent for network access.

-- 
Chris Adams 

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Owen DeLong]

> On Mar 10, 2016, at 07:55 , William Herrin  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Dennis Burgess
>  wrote:
>> Not wishing to get into a pissing war with who is right or wrong, but it 
>> sounds like
>> google already pays or has an agreement with cogent for v4, as that's 
>> unaffected,
>> cogent says google is simply not advertising v6 prefixes to them, so, how is
>> that cogent's fault?
> 
> Hi Dennis,
> 
> It's Cogent's fault because: double-billing. Google should not have to
> pay Cogent for a service which you have already paid Cogent to provide
> to you. Cogent's demand is unethical. They intentionally fail to
> deliver on the basic service expectation you pay them for and refuse
> to do so unless a third party to your contract also pays them.
> 
> Google, by contrast, makes no demand that Cogent pay them even though
> you are not paying Google for service. They offer "open peering," a
> free interconnect via many neutral data centers.

In fairness, however, this is because he is not Google’s customer, he
is Google’s product. Google is selling him (well, information about him
anyway) to their customers. They gather this information by offering
certain things he wants in exchange for him allowing them to collect
and redistribute this data.

Everything you say above is true, but let’s be clear where the customer
vs. product relationships truly are.

Owen

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Owen DeLong]

I think it’s a little different from what you say…

I think Google already reaches Cogent for IPv4 via transit.

Google, long ago, announced that they would not be purchasing IPv6 transit and 
that they have an open peering policy for anyone who wishes to reach them. In 
order to avoid significant disruption, they haven’t terminated their IPv4 
transit contracts, but it certainly makes sense that they would not be pursuing 
IPv6 transit contracts.

The situation with Hurricane Electric is somewhat similar.

Google and HE are two of the most significant IPv6 networks out there. In the 
IPv6 world, Cogent is basically an also-ran so far.

The peering dynamics are different in IPv4 and IPv6 because the adoption rates 
and deployments in various networks have been different.

Cogent is sticking their head in the sand and pretending that their IPv4 
peering status should carry over into IPv6 automatically.

One of two things will eventually happen…

Either Cogent will win this game of chicken and the IPv6 networks that are not 
paying to reach them by transit now will start paying to do so, or, Cogent will 
lose this game of chicken and become progressively less relevant in the IPv6 
internet.

Personally, my bet is on the latter. For historical precedent, I refer you to 
SPRINT (AS1239).

Owen

> On Mar 10, 2016, at 07:09 , Dennis Burgess  wrote:
> 
> Not wishing to get into a pissing war with who is right or wrong, but it 
> sounds like google already pays or has an agreement with cogent for v4, as 
> that's unaffected, cogent says google is simply not advertising v6 prefixes 
> to them, so, how is that cogent's fault?
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Lewis [mailto:jle...@lewis.org] 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2016 11:26 AM
> To: Jürgen Jaritsch 
> Cc: Dennis Burgess ; North American Network 
> Operators' Group 
> Subject: Re: AW: Cogent - Google - HE Fun
> 
> In other words, GOOG is playing peering chicken with Cogent for IPv6.  I'm 
> not surprised.  I suggested it during talks with GOOG roughly 10 years 
> ago...not saying I had any influence...I'm pretty sure I did not. :)
> 
> GOOG wants Cogent to peer.  Cogent wants GOOG to pay for transit (from them 
> or someone else to get to Cogent).  If you're well peered / multihomed, it's 
> not much of an issue.  If you're a single-homed Cogent customer, you should 
> complain to Cogent that they're not providing full
> IPv6 connectivity.
> 
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2016, Jürgen Jaritsch wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> mail from Cogent:
>> 
>> Dear Cogent Customer,
>> 
>> Thank you for contacting Cogent Customer Support for information about the 
>> Google IPv6 addresses you are unable to reach.
>> 
>> Google uses transit providers to announce their IPv4 routes to Cogent.
>> 
>> At this time however, Google has chosen not to announce their IPv6 routes to 
>> Cogent through transit providers.
>> 
>> We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause you and will notify you if 
>> there is an update to the situation.
>> 
>> 
>> Mail from Google:
>> 
>> Unfortunately it seems that your transit provider does not have IPv6 
>> connectivity with Google. We suggest you ask your transit provider to look 
>> for alternatives to interconnect with us.
>> 
>> Google maintains an open interconnect policy for IPv6 and welcomes any 
>> network to peer with us for access via IPv6 (and IPv4). For those networks 
>> that aren't able, or chose not to peer with Google via IPv6, they are able 
>> to reach us through any of a large number of transit providers.
>> 
>> For more information in how to peer directly with Google please visit 
>> https://peering.google.com 
>> 
>> best regards
>> 
>> Jürgen Jaritsch
>> Head of Network & Infrastructure
>> 
>> ANEXIA Internetdienstleistungs GmbH
>> 
>> Telefon: +43-5-0556-300
>> Telefax: +43-5-0556-500
>> 
>> E-Mail: jjarit...@anexia-it.com
>> Web: http://www.anexia-it.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Anschrift Hauptsitz Klagenfurt: Feldkirchnerstraße 140, 9020 
>> Klagenfurt
>> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Windbichler
>> Firmenbuch: FN 289918a | Gerichtsstand: Klagenfurt | UID-Nummer: AT 
>> U63216601
>> 
>> 
>> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
>> Von: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+jjaritsch=anexia-it@nanog.org] Im 
>> Auftrag von Dennis Burgess
>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 09. März 2016 17:01
>> An: North American Network Operators' Group
>> Betreff: Cogent - Google - HE Fun
>> 
>> I just noticed that I am NOT getting IPV6 Google prefixes though Cogent at 
>> all. I was told google pulled all of their peering with Cogent?   If I bring 
>> up a SIT tunnel with HE, I get the prefixes but at horrible speed and 
>> latency .. anyone else?
>> 
>> [DennisBurgessSignature]
>> www.linktechs.net - 314-735-0270 x103 - 
>> dmburg...@linktechs.net
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Nick Olsen]

This doesn't surprise me. Cogent get's into Peering Chicken from time to 
time. Just like Cogent and HE still have no IPv6 peering. *Insert picture 
of cake here*.
  
 Can also confirm I'm not learning  AS15169 routes via Cogent v6.

Nick Olsen
Network Operations  (855) FLSPEED  x106

  


 From: "Dennis Burgess" 
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2016 11:12 AM
To: "North American Network Operators' Group" 
Subject: Cogent - Google - HE Fun   
I just noticed that I am NOT getting IPV6 Google prefixes though Cogent at 
all. I was told google pulled all of their peering with Cogent? If I bring 
up a SIT tunnel with HE, I get the prefixes but at horrible speed and 
latency .. anyone else?

[DennisBurgessSignature]
www.linktechs.net - 314-735-0270 x103 - 
dmburg...@linktechs.net

 

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Mike Hammett]

http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2016-February/084147.html 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 


- Original Message -

From: "Dennis Burgess"  
To: "North American Network Operators' Group"  
Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2016 10:01:12 AM 
Subject: Cogent - Google - HE Fun 

I just noticed that I am NOT getting IPV6 Google prefixes though Cogent at all. 
I was told google pulled all of their peering with Cogent? If I bring up a SIT 
tunnel with HE, I get the prefixes but at horrible speed and latency .. anyone 
else? 

[DennisBurgessSignature] 
www.linktechs.net - 314-735-0270 x103 - 
dmburg...@linktechs.net