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 <kuenz...@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 <mharde...@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 <kuenz...@init7.net> wrote: >>> >>> Am 10.03.2016 um 22:25 schrieb Damien Burke <dam...@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* >>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
