Re: Cogent & Google IPv6

["Constantine A. Murenin" <mureninc () gmail com>]

I completely agree, the only possible explanation would be if they
actually get paid by Google for IPv4 transit (either directly or
indirectly), or somehow use Google's IPv4 traffic as a leverage to pad
the in/out ratios (and/or overall traffic levels) such as to continue
to enjoy settlement-free peering with other transit providers.

C.

On 25 February 2016 at 13:04, Matthew D. Hardeman <mhardeman () ipifony com> wrote:
> What’s truly amazing to me about this is that only Cogent seems to be engaging in this kind of behavior on IPv6.  
> Furthermore, the only people Cogent is hurting with their willful ignorance of the changing peering landscape in IPv6 
> is THEIR OWN PAYING CUSTOMERS.  Which is really bizarre when you think about it.  I’m trying to understand this from 
> Cogent’s perspective and failing.  They are creating a problem that impacts only their customers while others do not 
> create this same problem.  How can they imagine this is benefiting them?
>
>
> > On Feb 24, 2016, at 1:53 PM, Max Tulyev <maxtul () netassist ua> 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-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