IPv6 Cogent vs Hurricane Electric

Hi All,

we got an issue today that announces from Cogent don't reach Hurricane
Electric. HE support said that's a feature, not a bug.

So we have splitted Internet again?

I have to change at least one of my uplinks because of it, which one is
better to drop, HE or Cogent?

hasn't this been the case for ~10 yrs now?

Just hit it for first time...

Is there any other similar splits in IPv6 world?

we got an issue today that announces from Cogent don't reach Hurricane
Electric. HE support said that's a feature, not a bug.

So we have splitted Internet again?

Was there ever an adjacency between 6939 and 174 in the IPv6 DFZ?
Maybe bgpmon or dyn can comment on information collected over the last
few years.

I have to change at least one of my uplinks because of it, which one
is better to drop, HE or Cogent?

I recommend You base your decision on metrics relevant to your business,
such as network performance, positive/negative experiences with their
NOC, support from your account manager, pricing, how easy it was to
reach them (local tail needed or not), etc.

Kind regards,


Might I suggest cake pleas?

You mean
http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Hurricane-Cake.jpg ?

That cake will haunt NANOG until the end of time.

There is another option, instead of choosing just one - perhaps establish a tunnel to HE from a L3 device that can do the tunneling in hardware? You can get a HE tunnel for free, and they will speak BGP to you.

Alternatively, if you are on any IXes where HE is present - they will not only peer with you for v6, but announce a full table if you want it.

Wouldn't this be a Net Neutrality issue now or would it fall on HE for not
willing to buy transit to Cogent IPv6?

Wouldn't it fall on Cogent for being unwilling to buy transit from HE?
HE is the IPv6 leader in the game.

Bill Herrin

As funny as that would be, it would never happen. Cogent thinks they're the
biggest. HE is the biggest (last I checked). HE wants to peer. Cogent wants
HE to pay for transit. Cake reference. Still partitioned.

How do you get them connected? I hate to say it, but it would take a major
shift within Cogent. In the meantime your best option to see the whole IPv6
internet is to pay Cogent and to get free v6 transit with HE over an
exchange or tunnel.

Question: Why would you have to drop one of them? You have no problem if
you have both.

Even in the case of a link failure to one of them, you will likely not see
a big impact since everyone else also keeps multiple transits. You will
only have trouble with people that are single homed Cogent or HE, in which
case it is more them having a problem than you.



Or, if you feel that Cogent's stubborn insistence on
partitioning the global v6 internet shouldn't be rewarded
with money, pay someone *other* than cogent for
IPv6 transit and also connect to HE.net; that way
you still have access to cogent routes, but you also
send a subtle economic nudge that says "hey cogent--
trying to get into the tier 1 club by partitioning the
internet isn't a good path for long-term sucess".

Note that this is purely my own opinion, not necessarily
that of my employer, my friends, my family, or even my
cat. I asked my cat about cogent IPv6, and all I got was
a ghostly hairball as a reply[0].


[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kEME0CxmtY

Sadly, anyone you pay for transit to Cogent routes is going to be giving
Cogent their cut, so it's not a perfect signal to Cogent that we'd prefer to
have one IPv6ternet rather than two. At the very least, configure the
routers to that any routes you learn via HE are preferenced, and announce
your routes as preferring HE, so that Cogent gets as little of the traffic
as possible.

- Matt

Looking at the most recent IPv6 data available at CAIDA you can see the customer cone size:


Be careful as the tool seems fragile when switching from the 2014-09-01 IPv6 dataset and trying to sort by options, it seems to switch back to IPv4 silently.

Prefixes and/or AS’es in customer cone are likely the best measure, but even there Cogent is 2x HE.net. The only place where he.net leads is the transit degree with is likely distorted because of what you mention above, full tables, etc.

I find this data interesting and wish there was something more recent than 2014-09-01 to test with. Perhaps I could do something with all these atlas credits I have. (or someone could use them for me).

- Jared

I would say that if you buy transit for IPv4, you should have congruent
relationship with IPv6 as well. A network that does one and not the
other is clearly obvious to a skilled engineer.

Partitioning networks is bad, and I’d like to see this resolved myself.

  - Jared

Note their analysis is horribly flawed,
as it suffers from a 32-bit limitation
for counting IPv6 addresses.

I'd love to see them fix their code
and then re-run the analysis.


i mean

"Different companies have different personalities, and the vast
majority work through their relationships fine in the interest of the
public and the industry. But there are always a few companies that
like to act out on the public stage to achieve their business

                  --Mike Leber, 6/29/15 Telecom Ramblings

along with the bad spelling, we have short memories. peering is about
mutual benefits. when benefits aren't there peering doesn't happen.
going to nanog and yelling about peering by saying that you're a
victim isn't a mutual benefit last i checked. their lack of peering
doesn't demand another moment of our attention. choose wisely.

Drive slow,

Or, if you feel that Cogent's stubborn insistence on partitioning the
global v6 internet

if A does not peer with B,
then for all A and B
they are evil partitioners?

can we lower the rhetoric?


I thought we already had this conversation
a few years ago, but my memory is short,
so we can have it again. ^_^;

No, it's not an issue of A not peering
with B, it's A selling "internet transit"
for a known subset of the internet
rather than the whole kit and kaboodle.

I rather think that if you're going to put
a sign out saying "we sell internet transit",
it *is* incumbent on you to make a best
effort to ensure you have as complete
a copy of the full routing table as possible;
otherwise, it's potentially a fraudulent claim.
At least, that's what it would be in any other
industry if you sold something under a particular
name while knowing the whole time it didn't
fit the definition of the product.

I know in the service station industry,
I'd get in a lot of trouble if I sold "premium
unleaded gasoline" that was really just the
same as the "regular unleaded" with a
different label. It's fortunate that we're
not a regulated industry, so there's nobody
checking up on us to make sure that if
we sell "internet transit", it's not really
"internet transit, minus level3, sprint, ATT,
and a bunch of other networks that won't
get your prefixes from me".

It all boils down to 'caveat emptor' -- not all
uses of the word "internet transit" mean the
same thing--check carefully when buying, and
make sure you make informed decisions.

(now with 50% less rhetoric!)