Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

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

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

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

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

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

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

> 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

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

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

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

> 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

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

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

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

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)

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

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

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

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

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

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

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

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 Ti

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

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

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

d 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. >>> >>> ----

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

ennis > 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 t

RE: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

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 &g

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

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.or

RE: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

hew 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 th

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

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 - G

RE: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

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:

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

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

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

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

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

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

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

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

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

> 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 >

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

ss <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 th

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

; 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 appreci

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

-- > 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@n

RE: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

>; 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

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

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

> 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

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

> 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.

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

- 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

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

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

RE: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

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

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

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

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

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

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

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

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

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

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

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

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

* 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

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

> 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,

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

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. >>

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

> 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

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

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

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

> 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

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

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

re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

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

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

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