Re: [dns-operations] glitch on [ip6|in-addr].arpa?

On Thursday, 17 October 2019 13:44:07 UTC Adam Vallee wrote: > 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

Re: [dns-operations] glitch on [ip6|in-addr].arpa?

On jeu. 17 oct. 09:44:07 2019, Adam Vallee wrote: > 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.) I have Cogent (and Telia and GTT)

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

Re: [dns-operations] glitch on [ip6|in-addr].arpa?

> On Oct 16, 2019, at 7:41 AM, Paul Vixie wrote: > > 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 >

Re: [dns-operations] glitch on [ip6|in-addr].arpa?

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

Re: [dns-operations] glitch on [ip6|in-addr].arpa?

> On 12 Oct 2019, at 10:03, Keith Mitchell wrote: > > On 10/11/19 6:30 PM, Shumon Huque wrote: > >> It might be much more important for diagnostic and measurement services >> like DNSviz though. At the moment, if you run IPv6 DNS servers on >> networks that are singly connected to Cogent, it

Re: [dns-operations] glitch on [ip6|in-addr].arpa?

On 10/11/19 6:30 PM, Shumon Huque wrote: > It might be much more important for diagnostic and measurement services > like DNSviz though. At the moment, if you run IPv6 DNS servers on > networks that are singly connected to Cogent, it will probably > incorrectly flag those servers as unavailable.

Re: [dns-operations] glitch on [ip6|in-addr].arpa?

On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 4:12 PM Warren Kumari wrote: > On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 9:00 PM Joe Abley wrote: > >> >> What some people are seeing in this thread as a problem is actually a >> nice demonstration that the system as a whole is immune to damage due to >> partial-table peering

Re: [dns-operations] glitch on [ip6|in-addr].arpa?

On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 9:00 PM Joe Abley wrote: > On 11 Oct 2019, at 14:21, Paul Vixie wrote: > > > in the earlier days of DNS-OARC (where dnsviz migrated to recently), > there was a server at cogent, which was not reachable over IPv6 from users > are hurricane. i don't remember anybody

Re: [dns-operations] glitch on [ip6|in-addr].arpa?

> On Oct 11, 2019, at 2:21 PM, Paul Vixie wrote: > > i think there are 13 names each having an A and an . so, 26 candidate > addresses. most resolvers will try them all and home in on the one with the > lowest RTT. if one of the 13 it tries via IPv6 doesn't answer, it won't > affect

Re: [dns-operations] glitch on [ip6|in-addr].arpa?

Viktor Dukhovni wrote on 2019-10-10 17:51: ... 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

Re: [dns-operations] glitch on [ip6|in-addr].arpa?

Arsen STASIC: * Viktor Dukhovni [2019-10-10 20:51 (-0400)]: 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

Re: [dns-operations] glitch on [ip6|in-addr].arpa?

> 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 s/try to be/are not/ for cogent, v6 and v4 are parity > but that they should because HE's v6 network is much wider reaching > and much longer established than

Re: [dns-operations] glitch on [ip6|in-addr].arpa?

* Viktor Dukhovni [2019-10-10 20:51 (-0400)]: 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

Re: [dns-operations] glitch on [ip6|in-addr].arpa?

Adam, On Oct 11, 2019, at 12:36 AM, Adam Vallee wrote: > 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”

Re: [dns-operations] glitch on [ip6|in-addr].arpa?

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 04:36:32PM -0400, Adam Vallee wrote a message of 114 lines which said: > DoH and DoT have only become a thing since GDPR. Why is no one > saying anything? Are you serious? A lot of electrons are moved around DoH. Many articles (most of them wrong). You certainly

Re: [dns-operations] glitch on [ip6|in-addr].arpa?

On jeu. 10 oct. 22:31:48 2019, Adam Vallee wrote: > Cogent and Hurricane Electric are not and never have been Tier 1 providers > they both have Transit provided through other carriers. Cogent is a Tier 1 provider, they don’t have any transit. Although they don’t have an IPv6 full-view. --

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

Re: [dns-operations] glitch on [ip6|in-addr].arpa?

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 >

Re: [dns-operations] glitch on [ip6|in-addr].arpa?

On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 at 17:26, Jared Mauch wrote: > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 01:56:11PM -0700, Randy Bush wrote: > > >> Neither Cogent or HE buy transit from anybody else > > > > i believe this statement to be false > > i know of at least 2 transit providers.. > Both providing v4 transit,

Re: [dns-operations] glitch on [ip6|in-addr].arpa?

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 01:56:11PM -0700, Randy Bush wrote: > >> Neither Cogent or HE buy transit from anybody else > > i believe this statement to be false i know of at least 2 transit providers.. - jared -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from

Re: [dns-operations] glitch on [ip6|in-addr].arpa?

as a purely technical matter. On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 4:59 PM Frank Louwers wrote: ... Neither Cogent or HE buy transit from anybody else. They only peer and have customers. They don't buy "fallback" traffic. that doesn't match the perspective from my server inside cogent. [cc3.tisf:i386]

Re: [dns-operations] glitch on [ip6|in-addr].arpa?

>> Neither Cogent or HE buy transit from anybody else i believe this statement to be false randy ___ 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

Re: [dns-operations] glitch on [ip6|in-addr].arpa?

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 4:59 PM Frank Louwers wrote: > > Hi Warren, > > The lack of peering with a network doesn't prevent my accessing them, > it just means that my packets take a sub-optimal[0] route. > The above doesn't look like that at all, it looks like $something else > (like dropped

Re: [dns-operations] glitch on [ip6|in-addr].arpa?

> On Oct 10, 2019, at 1:08 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > > Like Warren, I am quite surprised to learn that the IPv6 backbone > has such gaps in 2019. We're expected to *prefer* IPv6, but in > reality one is a masochist to do so, (my server prefers V4). :-( It seems this was already a surprise 7

Re: [dns-operations] glitch on [ip6|in-addr].arpa?

On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 10:51:06PM -0400, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > I still see no answers from C or F from NYC via a Hurrican Electric > GRE tunnel, since my ISP (Verizon FiOS) still does not provide > native IPv6. :-( Ray Bellis reached out asking me test a fix for F root's IPv6 reachability,

Re: [dns-operations] glitch on [ip6|in-addr].arpa?

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 04:39:19PM +0200, Warren Kumari wrote a message of 64 lines which said: > The lack of peering with a network doesn't prevent my accessing them, This is true for the IPv4 Internet, where there is always another route, but the IPv6 Internet is not so well connected, and

Re: [dns-operations] glitch on [ip6|in-addr].arpa?

Hi Warren, > The lack of peering with a network doesn't prevent my accessing them, > it just means that my packets take a sub-optimal[0] route. > The above doesn't look like that at all, it looks like $something else > (like dropped fragments), which is completely different to not > peering[1]. >

Re: [dns-operations] glitch on [ip6|in-addr].arpa?

Adam, On Oct 10, 2019, at 8:28 AM, Adam Vallee wrote: > 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

Re: [dns-operations] glitch on [ip6|in-addr].arpa?

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 5:12 AM 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

Re: [dns-operations] glitch on [ip6|in-addr].arpa?

On 10/10/2019 04:51, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: $ traceroute6 f.root-servers.net. 1 tunnel545690.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net 8.442 ms 6.772 ms 7.252 ms 2 ve422.core1.nyc4.he.net 4.641 ms 3.155 ms 5.392 ms 3 100ge16-1.core1.ash1.he.net 10.781 ms 21.786 ms

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

Re: [dns-operations] glitch on [ip6|in-addr].arpa?

> 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

Re: [dns-operations] glitch on [ip6|in-addr].arpa?

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: > >

Re: [dns-operations] glitch on [ip6|in-addr].arpa?

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 > $

Re: [dns-operations] glitch on [ip6|in-addr].arpa?

On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 10:46:11PM +0200, A. Schulze wrote: > while debugging a PTR resolution problem I noticed warnings on > http://dnsviz.net/d/ip6.arpa/dnssec/ and > http://dnsviz.net/d/in-addr.arpa/dnssec/ > To me, it looks like some in-addr-servers.arpa servers are unable to handle > large