Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

["Matthew D. Hardeman" <mhardeman () ipifony com>]

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 Cogent customers.  I’ll grant, this is just what Google has done, but 
they’re well positioned to weather that storm and have a level of visibility and brand loyalty that will allow them to 
have a chance of success at it.

I think the softer approach of reducing the relevancy of Cogent’s IPv6 transit service and indeed the relevancy of 
peering with Cogent for IPv6 is a way forward that more of us could get behind.

Thanks,

Matt Hardeman

> On Mar 10, 2016, at 4:42 PM, Fredy Kuenzler <kuenzler () init7 net> wrote:
>
> 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 without 
> much collateral damage. It would support Google/HE's position. And maybe help to bring back Cogent onto a cooperative 
> track, after all.
>
> --
> Fredy Kuenzler
> Init7 (Switzerland) Ltd.
> St.-Georgen-Strasse 70
> CH-8400 Winterthur
> Switzerland
>
> http://www.init7.net/
>
>
> > Am 10.03.2016 um 23:19 schrieb Matthew D. Hardeman <mhardeman () ipifony com>:
> >
> > 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 as viewed by outsiders, this may ultimately 
> > impact their sales of new interconnection….
> >
> > For those of us multihomed with Cogent and other transit providers on IPv6 there is a less drastic way to impact the 
> > perceived value of Cogent’s IPv6 routing table to outsiders and especially to Cogent’s peers — and one that still 
> > doesn’t negatively impact the single-home customers of Cogent:
> >
> > "set community 174:3000" on your IPv6 advertisement to Cogent.  This will constrain the advertisement to Cogent and 
> > Cogent’s customers only.  For good measure, prepend your own AS to this advertisement at least a couple of times, 
> > potentially discouraging even Cogent customers who see the route from using it if they have other transit.  It will 
> > prevent the path via Cogent being selected by Cogent IPv6 peers versus your other transit providers.
> >
> >
> > > On Mar 10, 2016, at 3:47 PM, Fredy Kuenzler <kuenzler () init7 net> wrote:
> > >
> > > Am 10.03.2016 um 22:25 schrieb Damien Burke <damien () supremebytes com>:
> > > > Anyone who is multihomed with cogent ipv6 in their mix should shutdown their IPv6 bgp session. Let’s see if we can 
> > > > make their graph freefall.
> > >
> > >
> > > Alternative:
> > >
> > > set community [do not announce to Cogent]
> > >
> > > *SCNR*

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: