Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists () gmail com>]

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Dennis Bohn <bohn () adelphi edu> 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 attention?

"We would like transit services to the full ipv4 and ipv6 addressable
space, we would like our prefixes to be advertised to the whole of the
above space as well."

then you'd by one (some) connection(s) from 'best option #1' and
one(some) connection(s) to 'next best option'.

I'm not sure 'rfq' is required here is it? you just call the caida
top-10/15 and roll based on cost/performance. There are notable
exceptions to network performance (routing performance?) but really
they are all the same now, yes?

perhaps you would be more concerned not with 'ipv6/v4 reachability'
than with how what your customers access (may access in the future) is
reachable from the providers in question? and potentially what knobs
the providers expose to you for bgp TE functionality?

> On Mar 15, 2016 12:50 AM, "Todd Crane" <todd.crane () n5tech com> wrote:
>
> > > This is only tangentially related but it looks like HE has surpassed
> > Cogent on IPv4 adjacencies. That said the source probably suffers from a
> > selection bias at the very least.
> > > http://bgp.he.net/report/peers
> > Hit reply by mistake instead of reply all.
> >
> > > Todd Crane
> > >
> > > > On Mar 14, 2016, at 8:40 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman <mhardeman () ipifony com>
> > wrote:
> > > > It looks like Google is experimenting with a change in course on this
> > issue.
> > > > Here’s a look at the IPv6 routing table tonight on my router bordering
> > Cogent.
> > > > *>i 2607:f8b0:4013::/48
> > > >                    2620:121:a000:f0::2(fe80::618:d6ff:fef1:c540)
> > > >                                          0        150          0
> >  15169 i
> > > > *                    2001:550:2:22::1d:1(fe80::12f3:11ff:fe29:2c24)
> > > >                                          0        90           0
> >  174 6461 15169 i
> > > > *>i 2607:f8b0:4014::/48
> > > >                    2620:121:a000:f0::2(fe80::618:d6ff:fef1:c540)
> > > >                                          0        110          0
> >  6939 6461 15169 i
> > > > *                    2001:550:2:22::1d:1(fe80::12f3:11ff:fe29:2c24)
> > > >                                          0        90           0
> >  174 6461 15169 i
> > > > *>i 2607:f8b0:4016::/48
> > > >                    2620:121:a000:f0::2(fe80::618:d6ff:fef1:c540)
> > > >                                          0        150          0
> >  15169 i
> > > > *                    2001:550:2:22::1d:1(fe80::12f3:11ff:fe29:2c24)
> > > >                                          0        90           0
> >  174 6461 15169 i
> > > > This is only 3 IPv6 prefixes (out of 47 prefixes seen in my IPv6
> > routing table).  Two of these prefixes I see via direct peering with Google
> > and, alternatively, via Cogent through Zayo transit.  One of these prefixes
> > doesn’t advertise in Google’s direct peering session (at least not in mine,
> > but HE picks it up via Zayo and Cogent picks it up via Zayo).
> > > > All of these are /48 subnets of their greater 2620:f8b0::/32 prefix,
> > which does show up in both their direct session and in HE via Zayo.
> > > > > On Mar 13, 2016, at 9:31 AM, Dennis Burgess <dmburgess () linktechs net>
> > wrote:
> > > > > In the end, google has made a choice. I think these kinds of choices
> > will delay IPv6 adoption.
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Damien Burke [mailto:damien () supremebytes com]
> > > > > Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 2:51 PM
> > > > > To: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka () seacom mu>; Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>;
> > Dennis Burgess <dmburgess () 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 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 route transit beyond our network. We cannot
> > route to IPs that are not announced to us by the IP owner, directly or
> > through a network peer."
> > > >