Re: Standard terminology for a dark fiber path?

[Larry Sheldon]

On 2/24/2016 14:55, Fletcher Kittredge wrote:

What is the standard terminology for strands of dark fiber spliced together
to form a continuous path between points A and Z?

I have seen:

- *fiber circuit* [but also seen used to denote a connection at the
network layer over a physical fiber connection. This definition of circuit
would include the dark fiber path, the transmitters and receivers and logic
making up the data and network layers.]
- *fiber loop *[ Does a loop define an electrical circuit with two
physically separate positive and negative strands? In that case, is this a
Bellhead remnant? ]

I am particularly interested in last mile systems, but I don't see any
reason that the term wouldn't be the same in the middle mile.


What do you call it if it is made out of copper instead of glass?  Or air?

I don't see anything wrong with "fiber path".

(Answering my own question, maybe:  "dry pair from A to B". 
"[Microwave] Radio link between A and B.")




--
sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Juvenal)

Standard terminology for a dark fiber path?

[Fletcher Kittredge]

What is the standard terminology for strands of dark fiber spliced together
to form a continuous path between points A and Z?

I have seen:

   - *fiber circuit* [but also seen used to denote a connection at the
   network layer over a physical fiber connection. This definition of circuit
   would include the dark fiber path, the transmitters and receivers and logic
   making up the data and network layers.]
   - *fiber loop *[ Does a loop define an electrical circuit with two
   physically separate positive and negative strands? In that case, is this a
   Bellhead remnant? ]

I am particularly interested in last mile systems, but I don't see any
reason that the term wouldn't be the same in the middle mile.

thanks,
Fletcher

-- 
Fletcher Kittredge
GWI
8 Pomerleau Street
Biddeford, ME 04005-9457
207-602-1134

Re: Cogent & Google IPv6

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 16:51:55 -0500, "Patrick W. Gilmore" said:
> Or do you think Cogent is paying all of them? That is a possibility, but it
> means that Cogent is not getting paid - by definition.

All depends how creative their accountants are... :)



pgpW8dCKWjsxu.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Cogent & Google IPv6

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

On Feb 24, 2016, at 4:48 PM, Ricky Beam  wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 15:48:22 -0500, Patrick W. Gilmore  
> wrote:
>> And Ricky is wrong, the vast majority of prefixes Cogent routes have zero 
>> dollars behind them. Cogent gets paid by customers, not peers. (At least not 
>> the big ones.)
> 
> Show me a single connection to Cogent for which Cogent isn't being paid. 
> Cogent is the only provider I've ever heard of that will not do any form of 
> settlement-free peering.

You really think AT, Comcast, Level 3, Sprint, Verizon, etc. are paying 
Cogent?

Good thing I put my drink down before I read that.

Or do you think Cogent is paying all of them? That is a possibility, but it 
means that Cogent is not getting paid - by definition.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick

Re: Cogent & Google IPv6

[Ricky Beam]

On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 15:48:22 -0500, Patrick W. Gilmore   
wrote:
And Ricky is wrong, the vast majority of prefixes Cogent routes have  
zero dollars behind them. Cogent gets paid by customers, not peers. (At  
least not the big ones.)


Show me a single connection to Cogent for which Cogent isn't being paid.  
Cogent is the only provider I've ever heard of that will not do any form  
of settlement-free peering.

Re: Cogent & Google IPv6

[Brandon Butterworth]

> From nanog-boun...@nanog.org  Wed Feb 24 21:03:17 2016
> In one's situation, does Cogent have enough pros to overcome the
> cons? Same for HE or any other carrier.

Who cares, with everyone trying to be IPv6 transit free and covering it
with a settlement free peering policy it may accidentally turn into an
open peering stand off and everyone wins (except single homed Cogent
customers but they'll figure it out)

brandon

Re: Cogent & Google IPv6

[Paras Jha]

Transit providers are the mdidlemen of the internet, I see no problem with
the concept of "double dipping". It's their fiber and infrastructure, if
you want access to everything on their network, including other people on
their network, pay for it or find a way to get access.

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

> *nods* and everything is pros and cons. In one's situation, does Cogent
> have enough pros to overcome the cons? Same for HE or any other carrier. If
> I get full tables (v4 and b6) from multiple networks and\or I peer with the
> networks that are missing from a particular provider's offering, I may very
> well not give a darn about it being missing. I may never have even used it
> in the first place. If whatever advantages to me outweigh that loss, so be
> it.
>
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> Midwest-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
> - Original Message -
>
> From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" 
> To: "NANOG list" 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 2:27:21 PM
> Subject: Re: Cogent & Google IPv6
>
> Agreed on all points. “Double dipping” is not morally abhorrent, or even
> slightly slimy. However, Cogent customers paid Cogent to connect to The
> Internet, not “The other networks that are paying Cogent”. So in this case,
> if I had to make a choice of which provider to drop, I’d stick with Google.
> (I do not have to make such a decision.)
>
> One could claim the same about HE vs. Cogent. However, I’m still going to
> give the nod to the people saying “we are happy to connect” over the people
> who say “pay me to connect”. Obviously a lot of details I’m glossing over,
> but HE does have, IMHO, a good argument for v6 peering with Cogent. Doesn’t
> mean either is “wrong", just that is how I would vote with my wallet if I
> had to make the choice. (Again, I do not.)
>
> So when FB does the same thing, when Comcast does the same thing, when
> Apple does the same thing, when …. When will Cogent feel enough pain to
> relent?
>
> Or will this simply delay the full implementation of IPv6 even more, and
> Cogent won’t notice because everyone falls back to v4?
>
> --
> TTFN,
> patrick
>
> > On Feb 24, 2016, at 3:16 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
> >
> > Whomever hurts the most will blink first. I don't really care who that
> is. I have no ill will towards "double dipping". Either they do or they
> don't offer the desired connectivity and I'm moving on.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> > Mike Hammett
> > Intelligent Computing Solutions
> > http://www.ics-il.com
> >
> > Midwest-IX
> > http://www.midwest-ix.com
> >
> > - Original Message -
> >
> > From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" 
> > To: "NANOG list" 
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 2:12:07 PM
> > Subject: Re: Cogent & Google IPv6
> >
> > Are HE & Google the new L3 & FT?
> >
> > Nah, L3 would never have baked Cogent a cake. :)
> >
> > Shall we start a pool? Only problem is, should the pool be “who will
> disconnect from Cogent next?” or “when will Cogent blink?” I’m voting for
> the former.
> >
> > --
> > TTFN,
> > patrick
> >
> >> On Feb 24, 2016, at 3:08 PM, Baldur Norddahl 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> This is Google saying that Google does not want to pay for traffic to
> >> Cogent. If Cogent wants to exchange any traffic with Google, Cogent is
> >> invited to peer directly with Google. Of course Cogent refuses. And now
> >> Cogent is not only missing the part of IPv6 internet that is Hurricane
> >> Electric single homed but also everything Google.
> >>
> >> Why does Cogent refuse? They used to deliver this traffic on free
> peering
> >> with another tier 1 provider. Now they are asked to deliver the same
> >> traffic for the same price (free) on a direct peering session. They
> won't
> >> because Cogent believes Google should pay for this traffic. That another
> >> Cogent customer already paid for the traffic does not matter. They want
> >> double dipping or nothing. So nothing it is.
> >>
> >> Seems to me that if you are serious about IPv6 you can not use Cogent as
> >> your primary or secondary transit provider. You can use them as your
> third
> >> if you want to.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Baldur
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 24 February 2016 at 20:46, Matt Hoppes 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Cogent isn't peering with Google IPv6,
> >>> shouldn't the traffic flow out to one of their peer points where
> another
> >>> peer DOES peer with Google IPv6 and get you in?
> >>>
> >>> Isn't that how the Internet is suppose to work?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 2/24/16 2:43 PM, Damien Burke wrote:
> >>>
>  Not sure. I got the same thing today as well.
> 
>  Is this some kind of ipv6 war?
> 
>  -Original Message-
>  From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ian Clark
> 

Re: Cogent & Google IPv6

[Mike Hammett]

*nods* and everything is pros and cons. In one's situation, does Cogent have 
enough pros to overcome the cons? Same for HE or any other carrier. If I get 
full tables (v4 and b6) from multiple networks and\or I peer with the networks 
that are missing from a particular provider's offering, I may very well not 
give a darn about it being missing. I may never have even used it in the first 
place. If whatever advantages to me outweigh that loss, so be it. 




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

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Patrick W. Gilmore"  
To: "NANOG list"  
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 2:27:21 PM 
Subject: Re: Cogent & Google IPv6 

Agreed on all points. “Double dipping” is not morally abhorrent, or even 
slightly slimy. However, Cogent customers paid Cogent to connect to The 
Internet, not “The other networks that are paying Cogent”. So in this case, if 
I had to make a choice of which provider to drop, I’d stick with Google. (I do 
not have to make such a decision.) 

One could claim the same about HE vs. Cogent. However, I’m still going to give 
the nod to the people saying “we are happy to connect” over the people who say 
“pay me to connect”. Obviously a lot of details I’m glossing over, but HE does 
have, IMHO, a good argument for v6 peering with Cogent. Doesn’t mean either is 
“wrong", just that is how I would vote with my wallet if I had to make the 
choice. (Again, I do not.) 

So when FB does the same thing, when Comcast does the same thing, when Apple 
does the same thing, when …. When will Cogent feel enough pain to relent? 

Or will this simply delay the full implementation of IPv6 even more, and Cogent 
won’t notice because everyone falls back to v4? 

-- 
TTFN, 
patrick 

> On Feb 24, 2016, at 3:16 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote: 
> 
> Whomever hurts the most will blink first. I don't really care who that is. I 
> have no ill will towards "double dipping". Either they do or they don't offer 
> the desired connectivity and I'm moving on. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - 
> Mike Hammett 
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> http://www.ics-il.com 
> 
> Midwest-IX 
> http://www.midwest-ix.com 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> 
> From: "Patrick W. Gilmore"  
> To: "NANOG list"  
> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 2:12:07 PM 
> Subject: Re: Cogent & Google IPv6 
> 
> Are HE & Google the new L3 & FT? 
> 
> Nah, L3 would never have baked Cogent a cake. :) 
> 
> Shall we start a pool? Only problem is, should the pool be “who will 
> disconnect from Cogent next?” or “when will Cogent blink?” I’m voting for the 
> former. 
> 
> -- 
> TTFN, 
> patrick 
> 
>> On Feb 24, 2016, at 3:08 PM, Baldur Norddahl  
>> wrote: 
>> 
>> This is Google saying that Google does not want to pay for traffic to 
>> Cogent. If Cogent wants to exchange any traffic with Google, Cogent is 
>> invited to peer directly with Google. Of course Cogent refuses. And now 
>> Cogent is not only missing the part of IPv6 internet that is Hurricane 
>> Electric single homed but also everything Google. 
>> 
>> Why does Cogent refuse? They used to deliver this traffic on free peering 
>> with another tier 1 provider. Now they are asked to deliver the same 
>> traffic for the same price (free) on a direct peering session. They won't 
>> because Cogent believes Google should pay for this traffic. That another 
>> Cogent customer already paid for the traffic does not matter. They want 
>> double dipping or nothing. So nothing it is. 
>> 
>> Seems to me that if you are serious about IPv6 you can not use Cogent as 
>> your primary or secondary transit provider. You can use them as your third 
>> if you want to. 
>> 
>> Regards, 
>> 
>> Baldur 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 24 February 2016 at 20:46, Matt Hoppes  
>> wrote: 
>> 
>>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Cogent isn't peering with Google IPv6, 
>>> shouldn't the traffic flow out to one of their peer points where another 
>>> peer DOES peer with Google IPv6 and get you in? 
>>> 
>>> Isn't that how the Internet is suppose to work? 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 2/24/16 2:43 PM, Damien Burke wrote: 
>>> 
 Not sure. I got the same thing today as well. 
 
 Is this some kind of ipv6 war? 
 
 -Original Message- 
 From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ian Clark 
 Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 10:25 AM 
 To: NANOG 
 Subject: Cogent & Google IPv6 
 
 Anyone know what's actually going on here? We received the following 
 information from the two of them, and this just started a week or so ago. 
 
 
 *From Cogent, the transit provider for a branch office of ours:* 
 
 Dear Cogent Customer, 
 
 Thank you for contacting Cogent Customer Support for information about 
 the Google IPv6 

Re: Cogent & Google IPv6

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

“Tier One” used to mean SFI or customer downstream to every prefix on the ‘Net. 
Today it is more like “transit free”, since some “tier one” providers have paid 
peering.

And Ricky is wrong, the vast majority of prefixes Cogent routes have zero 
dollars behind them. Cogent gets paid by customers, not peers. (At least not 
the big ones.)

-- 
TTFN,
patrick

> On Feb 24, 2016, at 3:26 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
> 
> Isn't that how "Tier 1s" have always operated? Like, always? Customers or 
> peers with peers subject to various requirements. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - 
> Mike Hammett 
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> http://www.ics-il.com 
> 
> Midwest-IX 
> http://www.midwest-ix.com 
> 
> - Original Message -
> 
> From: "Ricky Beam"  
> To: "Matt Hoppes"  
> Cc: "NANOG"  
> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 2:18:24 PM 
> Subject: Re: Cogent & Google IPv6 
> 
> On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 14:46:56 -0500, Matt Hoppes 
>  wrote: 
>> Isn't that how the Internet is suppose to work? 
> 
> Perhaps. But that's not how *Cogent* works. They have a very idiotic view 
> of "Tier 1". They have no transit connections with anyone; someone is 
> paying them for every prefix they accept. 
> 
> Translation: No one in their right mind does business with Cogent. 

Re: Cogent & Google IPv6

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

Agreed on all points. “Double dipping” is not morally abhorrent, or even 
slightly slimy. However, Cogent customers paid Cogent to connect to The 
Internet, not “The other networks that are paying Cogent”. So in this case, if 
I had to make a choice of which provider to drop, I’d stick with Google. (I do 
not have to make such a decision.)

One could claim the same about HE vs. Cogent. However, I’m still going to give 
the nod to the people saying “we are happy to connect” over the people who say 
“pay me to connect”. Obviously a lot of details I’m glossing over, but HE does 
have, IMHO, a good argument for v6 peering with Cogent. Doesn’t mean either is 
“wrong", just that is how I would vote with my wallet if I had to make the 
choice. (Again, I do not.)

So when FB does the same thing, when Comcast does the same thing, when Apple 
does the same thing, when …. When will Cogent feel enough pain to relent?

Or will this simply delay the full implementation of IPv6 even more, and Cogent 
won’t notice because everyone falls back to v4?

-- 
TTFN,
patrick

> On Feb 24, 2016, at 3:16 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
> 
> Whomever hurts the most will blink first. I don't really care who that is. I 
> have no ill will towards "double dipping". Either they do or they don't offer 
> the desired connectivity and I'm moving on. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - 
> Mike Hammett 
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> http://www.ics-il.com 
> 
> Midwest-IX 
> http://www.midwest-ix.com 
> 
> - Original Message -
> 
> From: "Patrick W. Gilmore"  
> To: "NANOG list"  
> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 2:12:07 PM 
> Subject: Re: Cogent & Google IPv6 
> 
> Are HE & Google the new L3 & FT? 
> 
> Nah, L3 would never have baked Cogent a cake. :) 
> 
> Shall we start a pool? Only problem is, should the pool be “who will 
> disconnect from Cogent next?” or “when will Cogent blink?” I’m voting for the 
> former. 
> 
> -- 
> TTFN, 
> patrick 
> 
>> On Feb 24, 2016, at 3:08 PM, Baldur Norddahl  
>> wrote: 
>> 
>> This is Google saying that Google does not want to pay for traffic to 
>> Cogent. If Cogent wants to exchange any traffic with Google, Cogent is 
>> invited to peer directly with Google. Of course Cogent refuses. And now 
>> Cogent is not only missing the part of IPv6 internet that is Hurricane 
>> Electric single homed but also everything Google. 
>> 
>> Why does Cogent refuse? They used to deliver this traffic on free peering 
>> with another tier 1 provider. Now they are asked to deliver the same 
>> traffic for the same price (free) on a direct peering session. They won't 
>> because Cogent believes Google should pay for this traffic. That another 
>> Cogent customer already paid for the traffic does not matter. They want 
>> double dipping or nothing. So nothing it is. 
>> 
>> Seems to me that if you are serious about IPv6 you can not use Cogent as 
>> your primary or secondary transit provider. You can use them as your third 
>> if you want to. 
>> 
>> Regards, 
>> 
>> Baldur 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 24 February 2016 at 20:46, Matt Hoppes  
>> wrote: 
>> 
>>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Cogent isn't peering with Google IPv6, 
>>> shouldn't the traffic flow out to one of their peer points where another 
>>> peer DOES peer with Google IPv6 and get you in? 
>>> 
>>> Isn't that how the Internet is suppose to work? 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 2/24/16 2:43 PM, Damien Burke wrote: 
>>> 
 Not sure. I got the same thing today as well. 
 
 Is this some kind of ipv6 war? 
 
 -Original Message- 
 From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ian Clark 
 Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 10:25 AM 
 To: NANOG 
 Subject: Cogent & Google IPv6 
 
 Anyone know what's actually going on here? We received the following 
 information from the two of them, and this just started a week or so ago. 
 
 
 *From Cogent, the transit provider for a branch office of ours:* 
 
 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. 
 
 
 
 *From Google (re: Cogent):* 
 
 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 

Re: Cogent & Google IPv6

[Mike Hammett]

Isn't that how "Tier 1s" have always operated? Like, always? Customers or peers 
with peers subject to various requirements. 




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

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Ricky Beam"  
To: "Matt Hoppes"  
Cc: "NANOG"  
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 2:18:24 PM 
Subject: Re: Cogent & Google IPv6 

On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 14:46:56 -0500, Matt Hoppes 
 wrote: 
> Isn't that how the Internet is suppose to work? 

Perhaps. But that's not how *Cogent* works. They have a very idiotic view 
of "Tier 1". They have no transit connections with anyone; someone is 
paying them for every prefix they accept. 

Translation: No one in their right mind does business with Cogent. 

RE: Cogent & Google IPv6

[Damien Burke]

I have already shut down peering with cogent over ipv6 entirely (two weeks ago) 
over this issue. 

Cogent needs to get it together and work it out. Google is our overlord - you 
cannot refuse them.


-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Patrick W. Gilmore
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 12:12 PM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Re: Cogent & Google IPv6

Are HE & Google the new L3 & FT?

Nah, L3 would never have baked Cogent a cake. :)

Shall we start a pool? Only problem is, should the pool be “who will disconnect 
from Cogent next?” or “when will Cogent blink?” I’m voting for the former.

--
TTFN,
patrick

> On Feb 24, 2016, at 3:08 PM, Baldur Norddahl  
> wrote:
> 
> This is Google saying that Google does not want to pay for traffic to 
> Cogent. If Cogent wants to exchange any traffic with Google, Cogent is 
> invited to peer directly with Google. Of course Cogent refuses. And 
> now Cogent is not only missing the part of IPv6 internet that is 
> Hurricane Electric single homed but also everything Google.
> 
> Why does Cogent refuse? They used to deliver this traffic on free 
> peering with another tier 1 provider. Now they are asked to deliver 
> the same traffic for the same price (free) on a direct peering 
> session. They won't because Cogent believes Google should pay for this 
> traffic. That another Cogent customer already paid for the traffic 
> does not matter. They want double dipping or nothing. So nothing it is.
> 
> Seems to me that if you are serious about IPv6 you can not use Cogent 
> as your primary or secondary transit provider. You can use them as 
> your third if you want to.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Baldur
> 
> 
> 
> On 24 February 2016 at 20:46, Matt Hoppes 
> wrote:
> 
>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Cogent isn't peering with Google 
>> IPv6, shouldn't the traffic flow out to one of their peer points 
>> where another peer DOES peer with Google IPv6 and get you in?
>> 
>> Isn't that how the Internet is suppose to work?
>> 
>> 
>> On 2/24/16 2:43 PM, Damien Burke wrote:
>> 
>>> Not sure. I got the same thing today as well.
>>> 
>>> Is this some kind of ipv6 war?
>>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ian Clark
>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 10:25 AM
>>> To: NANOG
>>> Subject: Cogent & Google IPv6
>>> 
>>> Anyone know what's actually going on here?  We received the 
>>> following information from the two of them, and this just started a week or 
>>> so ago.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> *From Cogent, the transit provider for a branch office of ours:*
>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> *From Google (re: Cogent):*
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Ian Clark
>>> Lead Network Engineer
>>> DreamHost
>>> 
>>> 

Re: Cogent & Google IPv6

[Ricky Beam]

On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 14:46:56 -0500, Matt Hoppes  
 wrote:

Isn't that how the Internet is suppose to work?


Perhaps. But that's not how *Cogent* works. They have a very idiotic view  
of "Tier 1". They have no transit connections with anyone; someone is  
paying them for every prefix they accept.


Translation: No one in their right mind does business with Cogent.

Re: Cogent & Google IPv6

[Mike Hammett]

Whomever hurts the most will blink first. I don't really care who that is. I 
have no ill will towards "double dipping". Either they do or they don't offer 
the desired connectivity and I'm moving on. 




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

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Patrick W. Gilmore"  
To: "NANOG list"  
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 2:12:07 PM 
Subject: Re: Cogent & Google IPv6 

Are HE & Google the new L3 & FT? 

Nah, L3 would never have baked Cogent a cake. :) 

Shall we start a pool? Only problem is, should the pool be “who will disconnect 
from Cogent next?” or “when will Cogent blink?” I’m voting for the former. 

-- 
TTFN, 
patrick 

> On Feb 24, 2016, at 3:08 PM, Baldur Norddahl  
> wrote: 
> 
> This is Google saying that Google does not want to pay for traffic to 
> Cogent. If Cogent wants to exchange any traffic with Google, Cogent is 
> invited to peer directly with Google. Of course Cogent refuses. And now 
> Cogent is not only missing the part of IPv6 internet that is Hurricane 
> Electric single homed but also everything Google. 
> 
> Why does Cogent refuse? They used to deliver this traffic on free peering 
> with another tier 1 provider. Now they are asked to deliver the same 
> traffic for the same price (free) on a direct peering session. They won't 
> because Cogent believes Google should pay for this traffic. That another 
> Cogent customer already paid for the traffic does not matter. They want 
> double dipping or nothing. So nothing it is. 
> 
> Seems to me that if you are serious about IPv6 you can not use Cogent as 
> your primary or secondary transit provider. You can use them as your third 
> if you want to. 
> 
> Regards, 
> 
> Baldur 
> 
> 
> 
> On 24 February 2016 at 20:46, Matt Hoppes  
> wrote: 
> 
>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Cogent isn't peering with Google IPv6, 
>> shouldn't the traffic flow out to one of their peer points where another 
>> peer DOES peer with Google IPv6 and get you in? 
>> 
>> Isn't that how the Internet is suppose to work? 
>> 
>> 
>> On 2/24/16 2:43 PM, Damien Burke wrote: 
>> 
>>> Not sure. I got the same thing today as well. 
>>> 
>>> Is this some kind of ipv6 war? 
>>> 
>>> -Original Message- 
>>> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ian Clark 
>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 10:25 AM 
>>> To: NANOG 
>>> Subject: Cogent & Google IPv6 
>>> 
>>> Anyone know what's actually going on here? We received the following 
>>> information from the two of them, and this just started a week or so ago. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> *From Cogent, the transit provider for a branch office of ours:* 
>>> 
>>> 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. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> *From Google (re: Cogent):* 
>>> 
>>> 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 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Ian Clark 
>>> Lead Network Engineer 
>>> DreamHost 
>>> 
>>> 

Re: Cogent & Google IPv6

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

Are HE & Google the new L3 & FT?

Nah, L3 would never have baked Cogent a cake. :)

Shall we start a pool? Only problem is, should the pool be “who will disconnect 
from Cogent next?” or “when will Cogent blink?” I’m voting for the former.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick

> On Feb 24, 2016, at 3:08 PM, Baldur Norddahl  
> wrote:
> 
> This is Google saying that Google does not want to pay for traffic to
> Cogent. If Cogent wants to exchange any traffic with Google, Cogent is
> invited to peer directly with Google. Of course Cogent refuses. And now
> Cogent is not only missing the part of IPv6 internet that is Hurricane
> Electric single homed but also everything Google.
> 
> Why does Cogent refuse? They used to deliver this traffic on free peering
> with another tier 1 provider. Now they are asked to deliver the same
> traffic for the same price (free) on a direct peering session. They won't
> because Cogent believes Google should pay for this traffic. That another
> Cogent customer already paid for the traffic does not matter. They want
> double dipping or nothing. So nothing it is.
> 
> Seems to me that if you are serious about IPv6 you can not use Cogent as
> your primary or secondary transit provider. You can use them as your third
> if you want to.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Baldur
> 
> 
> 
> On 24 February 2016 at 20:46, Matt Hoppes 
> wrote:
> 
>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Cogent isn't peering with Google IPv6,
>> shouldn't the traffic flow out to one of their peer points where another
>> peer DOES peer with Google IPv6 and get you in?
>> 
>> Isn't that how the Internet is suppose to work?
>> 
>> 
>> On 2/24/16 2:43 PM, Damien Burke wrote:
>> 
>>> Not sure. I got the same thing today as well.
>>> 
>>> Is this some kind of ipv6 war?
>>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ian Clark
>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 10:25 AM
>>> To: NANOG
>>> Subject: Cogent & Google IPv6
>>> 
>>> Anyone know what's actually going on here?  We received the following
>>> information from the two of them, and this just started a week or so ago.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> *From Cogent, the transit provider for a branch office of ours:*
>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> *From Google (re: Cogent):*
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Ian Clark
>>> Lead Network Engineer
>>> DreamHost
>>> 
>>> 

Re: Cogent & Google IPv6

[Baldur Norddahl]

This is Google saying that Google does not want to pay for traffic to
Cogent. If Cogent wants to exchange any traffic with Google, Cogent is
invited to peer directly with Google. Of course Cogent refuses. And now
Cogent is not only missing the part of IPv6 internet that is Hurricane
Electric single homed but also everything Google.

Why does Cogent refuse? They used to deliver this traffic on free peering
with another tier 1 provider. Now they are asked to deliver the same
traffic for the same price (free) on a direct peering session. They won't
because Cogent believes Google should pay for this traffic. That another
Cogent customer already paid for the traffic does not matter. They want
double dipping or nothing. So nothing it is.

Seems to me that if you are serious about IPv6 you can not use Cogent as
your primary or secondary transit provider. You can use them as your third
if you want to.

Regards,

Baldur



On 24 February 2016 at 20:46, Matt Hoppes 
wrote:

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Cogent isn't peering with Google IPv6,
> shouldn't the traffic flow out to one of their peer points where another
> peer DOES peer with Google IPv6 and get you in?
>
> Isn't that how the Internet is suppose to work?
>
>
> On 2/24/16 2:43 PM, Damien Burke wrote:
>
>> Not sure. I got the same thing today as well.
>>
>> Is this some kind of ipv6 war?
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ian Clark
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 10:25 AM
>> To: NANOG
>> Subject: Cogent & Google IPv6
>>
>> Anyone know what's actually going on here?  We received the following
>> information from the two of them, and this just started a week or so ago.
>>
>>
>> *From Cogent, the transit provider for a branch office of ours:*
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From Google (re: Cogent):*
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ian Clark
>> Lead Network Engineer
>> DreamHost
>>
>>

Re: Cogent & Google IPv6

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

To answer Matt’s question, NO.

Assume Cogent peers with NTT. Assume Google peers with NTT. NTT has very good 
v6 connectivity (not an assumption).

Cogent cannot send a packet to NTT and say “please hand this to Google”. Nor 
can Google hand a packet to NTT with a destination of Cogent.

Under this scenario, NTT is not being paid by Cogent or Google. Why would they 
take a packet from one and give it to the other?

-- 
TTFN,
patrick

> On Feb 24, 2016, at 2:53 PM, Max Tulyev  wrote:
> 
> If you connected to Internet ONLY through Cogent - there is no other
> way. If you have another upstreams - Google should be reachable.
> 
> On 24.02.16 21:46, Matt Hoppes wrote:
>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Cogent isn't peering with Google IPv6,
>> shouldn't the traffic flow out to one of their peer points where another
>> peer DOES peer with Google IPv6 and get you in?
>> 
>> Isn't that how the Internet is suppose to work?
>> 
>> 
>> On 2/24/16 2:43 PM, Damien Burke wrote:
>>> Not sure. I got the same thing today as well.
>>> 
>>> Is this some kind of ipv6 war?
>>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ian Clark
>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 10:25 AM
>>> To: NANOG
>>> Subject: Cogent & Google IPv6
>>> 
>>> Anyone know what's actually going on here?  We received the following
>>> information from the two of them, and this just started a week or so ago.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> *From Cogent, the transit provider for a branch office of ours:*
>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> *From Google (re: Cogent):*
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Ian Clark
>>> Lead Network Engineer
>>> DreamHost
>>> 
>> 

Re: Cogent & Google IPv6

[Max Tulyev]

If you connected to Internet ONLY through Cogent - there is no other
way. If you have another upstreams - Google should be reachable.

On 24.02.16 21:46, Matt Hoppes wrote:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Cogent isn't peering with Google IPv6,
> shouldn't the traffic flow out to one of their peer points where another
> peer DOES peer with Google IPv6 and get you in?
> 
> Isn't that how the Internet is suppose to work?
> 
> 
> On 2/24/16 2:43 PM, Damien Burke wrote:
>> Not sure. I got the same thing today as well.
>>
>> Is this some kind of ipv6 war?
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ian Clark
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 10:25 AM
>> To: NANOG
>> Subject: Cogent & Google IPv6
>>
>> Anyone know what's actually going on here?  We received the following
>> information from the two of them, and this just started a week or so ago.
>>
>>
>> *From Cogent, the transit provider for a branch office of ours:*
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From Google (re: Cogent):*
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Ian Clark
>> Lead Network Engineer
>> DreamHost
>>
> 

Re: Cogent & Google IPv6

[Matt Hoppes]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Cogent isn't peering with Google IPv6, 
shouldn't the traffic flow out to one of their peer points where another 
peer DOES peer with Google IPv6 and get you in?


Isn't that how the Internet is suppose to work?


On 2/24/16 2:43 PM, Damien Burke wrote:

Not sure. I got the same thing today as well.

Is this some kind of ipv6 war?

-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ian Clark
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 10:25 AM
To: NANOG
Subject: Cogent & Google IPv6

Anyone know what's actually going on here?  We received the following 
information from the two of them, and this just started a week or so ago.


*From Cogent, the transit provider for a branch office of ours:*

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.



*From Google (re: Cogent):*

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


--
Ian Clark
Lead Network Engineer
DreamHost

RE: Cogent & Google IPv6

[Damien Burke]

Not sure. I got the same thing today as well.

Is this some kind of ipv6 war?

-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ian Clark
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 10:25 AM
To: NANOG
Subject: Cogent & Google IPv6

Anyone know what's actually going on here?  We received the following 
information from the two of them, and this just started a week or so ago.


*From Cogent, the transit provider for a branch office of ours:*

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.



*From Google (re: Cogent):*

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


--
Ian Clark
Lead Network Engineer
DreamHost

Cogent & Google IPv6

[Ian Clark]

Anyone know what's actually going on here?  We received the following
information from the two of them, and this just started a week or so ago.


*From Cogent, the transit provider for a branch office of ours:*

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.



*From Google (re: Cogent):*

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


-- 
Ian Clark
Lead Network Engineer
DreamHost

SIP strangeness on T-W cable ?

[John Levine]

Today I am unable to connect to my usual SIP servers from my T-W cable
account.  I've tried two Sipura terminal adapters and the softphone in
Jitsi, and I can't connect to either callcentric.com or
voipdiscount.com, and the network connection is otherwise looking
normal.  The SIP providers are up, if I call my callcentric number
from the other line it goes to voicemail as you'd expect.

Anyone else seeing SIP wierdness on T-W today?

R's,
John

SunGard On List?

[James Bensley]

Hi All,

Any SunGard on list?

Having a path issue from multiple ISPs in the UK.

Cheers,
James.

Re: APC vs UPC?

[Niels Bakker]

* baldur.nordd...@gmail.com (Baldur Norddahl) [Tue 23 Feb 2016, 14:25 CET]:
SFP modules will generally have UPC connectors. You therefore need 
to use cables with UPC at one end and APC at the other end.


If you use a APC-APC cable you will have 3-6 dB of optical loss. If 
it is a short connection and you are out of correct cables, it will 
usually work.


Don't connect APC to UPC.  You will damage the fiber.


-- Niels.