Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Dennis Bohn <bohn () adelphi edu>]

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?
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."
> > >