Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

On mer. 8 mars 09:29:11 2017, Marty Strong via NANOG wrote: > I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s unwanted, where Telstra domestic is > announcing to Telstra International, who in turn announces to Cogent. I wouldn’t too, especially since I don’t see it anymore: alarig@nominoe:~ % birdc6 show

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s unwanted, where Telstra domestic is announcing to Telstra International, who in turn announces to Cogent. Regards, Marty Strong -- Cloudflare - AS13335 Network Engineer ma...@cloudflare.com +44 7584 906 055 smartflare (Skype)

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

On sam. 25 févr. 09:49:56 2017, Aaron wrote: > Hi, I'm new to the nanog list, hope this isn't out of scope for what is > usually discussed here. > > > > Cogent is telling me that I can't route through cogent to get to google ipv6 > routes (particularly the well known dns addresses

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

On 3/2/17 3:42 PM, Jared Mauch wrote: > Yes. Most providers can send you just their customer routes. If they send you > full routes you want to discriminate customer vs peer routes. This is > typically done with communities and is worthwhile as most people have > capacity on customer links but

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

On Mar 3, 2017, at 9:05 PM, Job Snijders wrote: > On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 09:42:04AM -0500, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: >> On Mar 3, 2017, at 7:00 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote: >>> Niels Bakker wrote: As I explained in the rest of my email that you conveniently

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

In general I would not be single homed to a tier 1 ISP. You are better off using an ISP that has N upstream transit providers. That way they have multiple choices to select the best route. If you accept a default route from multiple upstreams you will be multi homed for inbound traffic but

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Job Snijders wrote: > > There are, of course, corner cases. But in general, single-homed > > people shouldn’t be using BGP. > > There are numerous reasons to use BGP when single-homed: > > - as preparation to multi-home in the (near) future

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 09:42:04AM -0500, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > On Mar 3, 2017, at 7:00 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > > Niels Bakker wrote: > >> As I explained in the rest of my email that you conveniently didn't > >> quote, it's so that you can selectively import routes from

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

On Mar 3, 2017, at 7:00 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > > Niels Bakker wrote: >> As I explained in the rest of my email that you conveniently didn't >> quote, it's so that you can selectively import routes from all your >> providers in situations where your router cannot handle a

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

* n...@foobar.org (Nick Hilliard) [Fri 03 Mar 2017, 13:02 CET]: Niels Bakker wrote: As I explained in the rest of my email that you conveniently didn't quote, it's so that you can selectively import routes from all your providers in situations where your router cannot handle a full table.

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

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

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

* how...@leadmon.net (Howard Leadmon) [Fri 03 Mar 2017, 01:06 CET]: On 3/2/2017 2:57 PM, Niels Bakker wrote: You should ask for full routes from all your providers + a default. If you taking full routes from everyone, why would you need a default? If they don't show a route for it, they

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

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

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

Interesting question whether 2000::/3 or ::/0 is the better default route. >From what I can tell (as OP indicated) most are using ::/0. (I should probably add for those who have not been running V6 for long that for the forseeble future 2000::/3 is the extent of the V6 allocation, the rest being

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

On 3/2/2017 2:57 PM, Niels Bakker wrote: You should ask for full routes from all your providers + a default. -- Niels. If you taking full routes from everyone, why would you need a default? If they don't show a route for it, they probably can't reach it. I don't think I have run

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

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

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

I think the implication is that, on Cogent, there isn't. :) On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 14:00 Chuck Anderson wrote: > Define "good" vs. "bad" transport of bits. As long as there is > adequate bandwidth and low latency, who cares? > > On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 08:30:37PM +0100, Baldur

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

Define "good" vs. "bad" transport of bits. As long as there is adequate bandwidth and low latency, who cares? On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 08:30:37PM +0100, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > That will have the effect of prioritizing Cogent routes as that would be > more specific than the default routes from

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

* aar...@gvtc.com (Aaron Gould) [Thu 02 Mar 2017, 20:52 CET]: Yes, thanks, I am going to do that. But, is there a middle ground between being default only and full routes ? Like is it advantageous for me to ask for partial routes (like their routes and direct peers and default route) ? This

RE: google ipv6 routes via cogent

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

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

Ah - you are correct So - yeah what Alarig said - get full routes from all On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > That will have the effect of prioritizing Cogent routes as that would be > more specific than the default routes from the other

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

That will have the effect of prioritizing Cogent routes as that would be more specific than the default routes from the other providers. Cogent are not that good that you would want to do that. Den 2. mar. 2017 20.16 skrev "Jeff Waddell" : Or at least ask for a

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

Or at least ask for a full view from Cogent - then you won't get any routes they don't have On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Alarig Le Lay wrote: > On jeu. 2 mars 12:36:04 2017, Aaron Gould wrote: > > Well, I asked my (3) upstream providers to only send me a ipv6 default >

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

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

RE: google ipv6 routes via cogent

Well, I asked my (3) upstream providers to only send me a ipv6 default route and they sent me ::/0...here's one of them... RP/0/RSP0/CPU0: 9k#sh bgp vrf one ipv6 uni neighbors abcd:1234::1 routes Thu Mar 2 12:33:23.644 CST ... Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best

RE: google ipv6 routes via cogent

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

RE: google ipv6 routes via cogent

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

RE: google ipv6 routes via cogent

Thanks everyone, and my apologies. After I sent that email to you all, I did google for it and found that this has been a problem since ~ February 2016. Dang, that long?! In that case, I'm shutting down my ipv6 neighboring with cogent. I have 2 other inet v6 connections. I only learn 0/0

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

On sam. 25 févr. 09:49:56 2017, Aaron wrote: > Hi, I'm new to the nanog list, hope this isn't out of scope for what is > usually discussed here. > > > > Cogent is telling me that I can't route through cogent to get to google ipv6 > routes (particularly the well known dns addresses

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Alarig Le Lay wrote: > On sam. 25 févr. 09:49:56 2017, Aaron wrote:Hi, > > Cogent is not able to receive traffic from Google since February 2016, > the case is the same with HE since 2010. > > I think maybe that wording isn't quite correct:

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

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

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net - Original Message - > From: "Aaron" <aar...@gvtc.com> > To: "nanog list" <nanog@nanog.org> > Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2017 10:49:56 AM > Subject: google ipv6 routes v

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

On Sat, 25 Feb 2017, Aaron wrote: Hi, I'm new to the nanog list, hope this isn't out of scope for what is usually discussed here. Cogent is telling me that I can't route through cogent to get to google ipv6 routes (particularly the well known dns addresses 2001:4860:4860::88xx) because

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

ry 25, 2017 9:49:56 AM Subject: google ipv6 routes via cogent Hi, I'm new to the nanog list, hope this isn't out of scope for what is usually discussed here. Cogent is telling me that I can't route through cogent to get to google ipv6 routes (particularly the well known dns addresses 2001

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

Cogent refuses to settlement-free peer on IPv6 to Google and Hurricane Electric. The problem *in my mind* rests with Cogent trying to extract $$$ from said parties. Regards, Marty Strong -- Cloudflare - AS13335 Network Engineer ma...@cloudflare.com +44 7584

google ipv6 routes via cogent

Hi, I'm new to the nanog list, hope this isn't out of scope for what is usually discussed here. Cogent is telling me that I can't route through cogent to get to google ipv6 routes (particularly the well known dns addresses 2001:4860:4860::88xx) because google decided not to advertise those