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
Not sure. I got the same thing today as well.
Is this some kind of ipv6 war?
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?
If you connected to Internet ONLY through Cogent - there is no other
way. If you have another upstreams - Google should be reachable.
To answer Matt’s question, NO.
Assume Cogent peers with NTT. Assume Google peers with NTT. NTT has very good v6 connectivity (not an assumption).
Cogent cannot send a packet to NTT and say “please hand this to Google”. Nor can Google hand a packet to NTT with a destination of Cogent.
Under this scenario, NTT is not being paid by Cogent or Google. Why would they take a packet from one and give it to the other?
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.
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.
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.
Perhaps. But that's not how *Cogent* works. They have a very idiotic view of "Tier 1". They have no transit connections with anyone; someone is paying them for every prefix they accept.
Translation: No one in their right mind does business with Cogent.
I have already shut down peering with cogent over ipv6 entirely (two weeks ago) over this issue.
Cogent needs to get it together and work it out. Google is our overlord - you cannot refuse them.
Isn't that how "Tier 1s" have always operated? Like, always? Customers or peers with peers subject to various requirements.
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?
“Tier One” used to mean SFI or customer downstream to every prefix on the ‘Net. Today it is more like “transit free”, since some “tier one” providers have paid peering.
And Ricky is wrong, the vast majority of prefixes Cogent routes have zero dollars behind them. Cogent gets paid by customers, not peers. (At least not the big ones.)
*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.
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.
Show me a single connection to Cogent for which Cogent isn't being paid. Cogent is the only provider I've ever heard of that will not do any form of settlement-free peering.
You really think AT&T, Comcast, Level 3, Sprint, Verizon, etc. are paying Cogent?
Good thing I put my drink down before I read that.
Or do you think Cogent is paying all of them? That is a possibility, but it means that Cogent is not getting paid - by definition.
All depends how creative their accountants are...
Show me a single connection to Cogent for which Cogent isn't being
i suspect none of att|ntt|l3|... pay cogent
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?