Re: Am I the only one who thinks this is disconcerting?

[Giorgio Bonfiglio via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>]

On a related note, I recently noticed Google became reachable again over IPv6 from Cogent (I didn't have any automated 
testing in place so this can well have happened long ago - last posts I can find about the issue are from mid-2020).

 


 

 

It's apparently through Tata/6453 so looks like they figured it out. Does anyone have context on when / how this was 
done? Can't find anything on the internet!

 


 

 

> From Cogent's LG:

 


 

 

  6453 15169
     2001:550:0:1000::261c:143 (metric 102020) from 2001:550:0:1000::261c:153 (38.28.1.67)
       Origin IGP, metric 4294967294, localpref 100, valid, internal, best, group-best
       Received Path ID 0, Local Path ID 1, version 175370
       Community: 174:11401 174:20666 174:21100 174:22005
       Originator: 38.28.1.67, Cluster list: 38.28.1.83

 


 

 


 

 
On 13/11/2023 20:38, Ryan Hamel wrote:
 
 
 Matt,
 
 
 Why would HE hijack Cogent's IP space? That would end in a lawsuit and potentially even more de-peering between them.
 
 
 
 Ryan Hamel
 
 
 
 
 
--------------------------------
 
From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+ryan=rkhtech.org () nanog org> on behalf of Matt Corallo <nanog () as397444 net>
 Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 11:32 AM
 To: Bryan Fields <Bryan () bryanfields net>; nanog () nanog org <nanog () nanog org>
 Subject: Re: Am I the only one who thinks this is disconcerting? 
 
 
 
 
Caution: This is an external email and may be malicious. Please take care when clicking links or opening attachments.
 
 
 On 11/8/23 2:23 PM, Bryan Fields wrote:
> On 11/8/23 2:25 PM, owen () Delong com wrote:
> > Seems irresponsible to me that a root-server (or other critical DNS provider) would engage in a
> > peering war to the exclusion of workable DNS.
>
> I've brought this up before and the root servers are not really an IANA function IIRC.  There's not
> much governance over them, other than what's on root-servers.org.  I think a case could be made that
> C is in violation of the polices on that page and RFC 7720 section 3.

> Basically none of the root servers want to change this and thus it's never going to change.  DNS
> will fail and select another to talk to, and things will still work.
 
 At what point does HE just host a second C root and announce the same IPv6s? Might irritate Cogent,
 but its not more "bad" than Cogent failing to uphold the requirements for running a root server.
 
 Matt
 
 
 

-- 
www: grg.pw
email: me () grg pw
mobile: +44 7716 604314 / +39 393 1049073