Re: [dns-operations] glitch on [ip6|in-addr].arpa?
So what your admitting here, with your interesting choice of Words, is that Cogent is NOT in fact a Tier 1 provider. In the traditional definition of a "FreeNet" where a Tier 1 provider peers with all other Tier 1 providers in a shared cost model. That's good to know, because in fact our experience is that their service doesn't compare to Telia, HE, and GTT, and I was finally able to convince our NA Team to dump Cogent at Contract Renewal. Their routes are longer and have higher latency. And we now announce the C-Root ASN and IP prefixes to our internal network, in effect running our own C-Root. And we pay less for our bandwidth from Telia than we're paying Cogentco. I would suggest to everyone who has access to Telia or GTT, to try them out, and then you can possibly save money by dumping Cogentco. (That's if any of you are also part of your Network Architecture Teams.) Thank you for sharing. Adam Vallee On Wed., Oct. 16, 2019, 10:27 a.m. Paul Vixie, wrote: > a late followup. > > Rubens Kuhl wrote on 2019-10-12 13:50: > > ... > > > > If someone from Cogent is reading, that's their opportunity to step > > up and provide at least a partial feed to OARC. > > i'm part of the cogent c-root team, and i was a co-founder of dns-oarc. > we have hosted elements of the dns-oarc project at cogent before, and we > are working with the dns-oarc engineering team to make our > ipv6-addressed c-root server visible to their measurement systems. > > > Unless they want to do the better thing which is to end this peering > > war and stop messing IPv6 Internet... > > when i succeeded dave rand as cto of abovenet in Y2K or so, we had a > completely open peering policy -- we even peered with customers, if they > wanted a second BGP connection so they didn't have to pay by bit-volume > when exchange traffic with our other customers. this made business sense > to the company and its employees and investors and customers. > > hurricane and cogent are also businesses, each having employees and > investors and customers. they are each doing what makes sense to them. > this is not a "peering war" by any stretch of the vocabulary. cogent > does not have a completely open peering policy, and while hurricane has > transit for its ipv4 network, it lacks transit for its ipv6 network. > > their networks, their rules. > > -- > P Vixie > > ___ > dns-operations mailing list > dns-operations@lists.dns-oarc.net > https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations > ___ dns-operations mailing list dns-operations@lists.dns-oarc.net https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations
Re: [dns-operations] glitch on [ip6|in-addr].arpa?
This is the point I've been trying to make for over 24 hours but it would seem that my comments are not being approved and sent to the list. It is apparent by looking at any predominantly IPv6 Network that they have to have more than one IP Transit provider that provides them with IPv6. I believe it's as simple as allowing the two companies to generate Revenue because you must connect either directly to both of them or to two partner networks that they do buy Transit from. Cogent and Hurricane Electric are not and never have been Tier 1 providers they both have Transit provided through other carriers. This is apparent simply by looking at the number of bgp peers that they have and doing Traceroutes through their respective lookinglasses you can tell that they must be purchasing Transit through other providers and last time I checked networks that peer with each other do not provide free transatlantic IP Transit nor do they provide Trans Pacific Transit without charging for it. Adam On Thu., Oct. 10, 2019, 8:59 p.m. Viktor Dukhovni, wrote: > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 06:25:41PM -0400, Matthew Pounsett wrote: > > > The speculation I've seen is that Cogent refuses to treat HE as a Tier1 > > network in v6 because they don't try to also be one in v4, but that they > > should because HE's v6 network is much wider reaching and much longer > > established than Cogent's. In any case, Cogent's refusal to peer with HE > > over v6 has been very public and well documented. It makes Cogent > > unreachable from a significant portion of the v6 network. > > It has perhaps not been as well known as it deserves to be. Perhaps > additional publicity here (and any other relevant fora), might nudge > the parties closer to a resolution. The non-reachability of the > IPv6 C root from a significant portion of IPv6 space is not a healthy > situation. > > The error is immediately apparent via DNSViz: > > https://dnsviz.net/d/root/dnssec/ > > -- > Viktor. > ___ > dns-operations mailing list > dns-operations@lists.dns-oarc.net > https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations > ___ dns-operations mailing list dns-operations@lists.dns-oarc.net https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations
Re: [dns-operations] glitch on [ip6|in-addr].arpa?
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 10:40 AM David Conrad wrote: > Adam, > > I’d recommend reading "A Proposed Governance Model for the DNS Root > Server System” ( > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rssac-037-15jun18-en.pdf) > > Regards, > -drc > I think you are only helping my point, in that it says the following in that document: ... 7.RSOs must operate with integrity and an ethos demonstrating a commitment to the common good of the Internet. ... 11.RSOs must be neutral and impartial. Cogent is not activating in a commitment to the common good of the internet, and they are not neutral nor impartial. More to my point, I believe that it is fundamental that the DNS system stays a distributed system, and that the root-servers be maintained and operated "to the common good of the internet". It is bad enough that the G and H servers are only operated at a few locations, we generally rely on D, E, F, and L root servers in Canada, because none of the other operators will allow Canadian based ISPs or IXPs to host them. (this is an issue.) And now we have this push to DoH and DoT which is the biggest false flag that I have ever witnessed, and its only real intent is to put more power in the hands of a few already powerful organizations, that will use the data mined from their users to build advertising profiles. DoH and DoT have only become a thing since GDPR. Why is no one saying anything? Anyway, I hope you can see where I am coming from. Adam Vallee ___ dns-operations mailing list dns-operations@lists.dns-oarc.net https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations
Re: [dns-operations] glitch on [ip6|in-addr].arpa?
In my opinion, a new C root operator should be chosen based on the fact that Cogent is not fulfilling its duty to operate their root servers for the benefit of the internet as a whole. It seems to me that they are operating the root for the benefit of their customers only. And the fact that they do block access from HE.net over IPv6 should be grounds for their agreement to be torn up, the responsibility should be assigned to a group of ISPs. And don't get me started on G root, or H root. Adam Vallee On Wed., Oct. 9, 2019, 11:10 p.m. Matthew Pounsett, wrote: > > > On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 22:57, Viktor Dukhovni > wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 05:41:43PM -0400, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: >> >> > No, even small responses receive no answers from the IPv6 addresses >> > of the C and F roots. Both of the below time out even though I'm >> > not setting the "DO" bit: >> > >> > $ dig -6 +norecur -t soa arpa. @2001:500:2f::f >> > $ dig -6 +norecur -t soa arpa. @2001:500:2::c >> > >> > Looks like an outage from my vantage point. >> > > I can't speak to the reachability of F from that vantage point, but Cogent > has famously refused to peer over v6 with HE, which is why they're > unreachable from OARC (and therefore DNSViz) and lots of other places on > the Internet. > > ___ > dns-operations mailing list > dns-operations@lists.dns-oarc.net > https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations > ___ dns-operations mailing list dns-operations@lists.dns-oarc.net https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations
