I just noticed that I am NOT getting IPV6 Google prefixes though Cogent at all. I was told google pulled all of their peering with Cogent? If I bring up a SIT tunnel with HE, I get the prefixes but at horrible speed and latency .. anyone else?
[DennisBurgessSignature]
Hi,
mail from Cogent:
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.
Mail from Google:
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
best regards
Jürgen Jaritsch
Head of Network & Infrastructure
ANEXIA Internetdienstleistungs GmbH
Telefon: +43-5-0556-300
Telefax: +43-5-0556-500
E-Mail: JJaritsch@anexia-it.com
Web: http://www.anexia-it.com
Anschrift Hauptsitz Klagenfurt: Feldkirchnerstraße 140, 9020 Klagenfurt
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Windbichler
Firmenbuch: FN 289918a | Gerichtsstand: Klagenfurt | UID-Nummer: AT U63216601
In other words, GOOG is playing peering chicken with Cogent for IPv6. I'm not surprised. I suggested it during talks with GOOG roughly 10 years ago...not saying I had any influence...I'm pretty sure I did not. 
GOOG wants Cogent to peer. Cogent wants GOOG to pay for transit (from them or someone else to get to Cogent). If you're well peered / multihomed, it's not much of an issue. If you're a single-homed Cogent customer, you should complain to Cogent that they're not providing full IPv6 connectivity.
This doesn't surprise me. Cogent get's into Peering Chicken from time to
time. Just like Cogent and HE still have no IPv6 peering. *Insert picture
of cake here*.
Can also confirm I'm not learning AS15169 routes via Cogent v6.
Nick Olsen
Network Operations (855) FLSPEED x106
Not wishing to get into a pissing war with who is right or wrong, but it sounds like google already pays or has an agreement with cogent for v4, as that's unaffected, cogent says google is simply not advertising v6 prefixes to them, so, how is that cogent's fault?
My guess is that GOOG is playing peering chicken with Cogent on "the IPv6 Internet" because doing so is low impact. Doing this with v4 routing would be far more painful to both GOOG and single-homed Cogent customers (probably make the news and make one or both look bad). Doing this with v6 keeps it off in the shadows...both parties know its an issue, but its likely not seriously impacting anyone yet. GOOG likely thinks they're big enough and their content desirable enough, that Cogent should peer with them. Cogent clearly disagrees. I'm sure GOOG would prefer SFI with Cogent for v4 and v6...but they're working on getting v6 first.
Not wishing to get into a pissing war with who is right or wrong, but it sounds like google already pays or has an agreement with cogent for v4, as that's unaffected, cogent says google is simply not advertising v6 prefixes to them, so, how is that cogent's fault?
Did you check that on Cogent's LookingGlass?
"BGP routing table entry for 216.239.32.0/24, version 3740382954
Paths: (1 available, best #1, table Default-IP-Routing-Table)
6453 15169
154.54.13.206 (metric 10102020) from 154.54.66.21 (154.54.66.21)
Origin IGP, metric 4294967294, localpref 100, valid, internal, best
Community: 174:10031 174:20666 174:21000 174:22013
Originator: 66.28.1.9, Cluster list: 154.54.66.21"
is a lookup on: Looking Glass
if 216.239.32.0 - which holds ns1.google.com... I'd expect that
ns1.google.com would be routed via the majority of links 15169 has
with the world.
I think it’s a little different from what you say…
I think Google already reaches Cogent for IPv4 via transit.
Google, long ago, announced that they would not be purchasing IPv6 transit and that they have an open peering policy for anyone who wishes to reach them. In order to avoid significant disruption, they haven’t terminated their IPv4 transit contracts, but it certainly makes sense that they would not be pursuing IPv6 transit contracts.
The situation with Hurricane Electric is somewhat similar.
Google and HE are two of the most significant IPv6 networks out there. In the IPv6 world, Cogent is basically an also-ran so far.
The peering dynamics are different in IPv4 and IPv6 because the adoption rates and deployments in various networks have been different.
Cogent is sticking their head in the sand and pretending that their IPv4 peering status should carry over into IPv6 automatically.
One of two things will eventually happen…
Either Cogent will win this game of chicken and the IPv6 networks that are not paying to reach them by transit now will start paying to do so, or, Cogent will lose this game of chicken and become progressively less relevant in the IPv6 internet.
Personally, my bet is on the latter. For historical precedent, I refer you to SPRINT (AS1239).
Owen
Hi Dennis,
It's Cogent's fault because: double-billing. Google should not have to
pay Cogent for a service which you have already paid Cogent to provide
to you. Cogent's demand is unethical. They intentionally fail to
deliver on the basic service expectation you pay them for and refuse
to do so unless a third party to your contract also pays them.
Google, by contrast, makes no demand that Cogent pay them even though
you are not paying Google for service. They offer "open peering," a
free interconnect via many neutral data centers.
If you're not single-homed to Cogent and you have the balls for it, I
would file an outage with Cogent and demand service credit until they
resolve their IPv6 access problem with Google. And then refuse to pay
until they connect with Google.
If you are single-homed to Cogent, it's *very* important that you do
something about that before you get burned in a way that matters.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
In fairness, however, this is because he is not Google’s customer, he
is Google’s product. Google is selling him (well, information about him
anyway) to their customers. They gather this information by offering
certain things he wants in exchange for him allowing them to collect
and redistribute this data.
Everything you say above is true, but let’s be clear where the customer
vs. product relationships truly are.
Owen
Once upon a time, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> said:
In fairness, however, this is because he is not Google’s customer, he
is Google’s product. Google is selling him (well, information about him
anyway) to their customers. They gather this information by offering
certain things he wants in exchange for him allowing them to collect
and redistribute this data.
False supposition; Google does actually sell services as well. $DAYJOB
pays Google for services, and has paid Cogent for network access.
Once upon a time, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> said:
In fairness, however, this is because he is not Google’s customer, he
is Google’s product. Google is selling him (well, information about him
anyway) to their customers. They gather this information by offering
certain things he wants in exchange for him allowing them to collect
and redistribute this data.False supposition; Google does actually sell services as well. $DAYJOB
pays Google for services, and has paid Cogent for network access.
Not my assumption… Assumption included from Bill Herrin’s message…
Google, by contrast, makes no demand that Cogent pay them even though
you are not paying Google for service.
(Underline added for emphasis)
Owen
Guys, that would be an important distinction if Cogent were providing
Dennis with free service. They're not. Regardless of what Google does
or doesn't do, Dennis pays Cogent to connect him to the wide Internet
which emphatically includes Google. I'm sorry I said anything at all
about Dennis' relationship with Google because that is immaterial to
whether Cogent is honorably fulfilling its contract with Dennis.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
Which doesn’t disagree with anything I said.
Owen
Please tell me when I can get Verizon FiOS to agree that they're
supposed to provide me with access to the wide Internet, which includes
everything IPv6.
Thanks!
Stephen
Anyone that complains about double billing doesn't apparently know how the Internet works and should relegate themselves to writing articles for GigaOm. Oh....
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.
[cid:image001.png@01D17AD0.248335A0]
Alternative:
set community [do not announce to Cogent]
*SCNR*
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.