Re: Cogent & Google IPv6

[Paras Jha <paras () protrafsolutions com>]

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 <nanog () ics-il net> 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" <patrick () ianai net>
> To: "NANOG list" <nanog () nanog org>
> 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 <nanog () ics-il net> 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" <patrick () ianai net>
> > To: "NANOG list" <nanog () nanog org>
> > 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 <baldur.norddahl () gmail com>
> 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 <mhoppes () indigowireless com>
> > > 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-bounces () 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