RE: Cogent input
Our experience with them was at least one major (longer than an hour) outages PER MONTH and many of those times they were black holing our routes in their network which was the most damaging aspect. The outages were one thing but when our routes still somehow managed to get advertised in their network (even though our BGP session was down) that really created issues. I have heard from some nearby folks who still have service that it's gotten better, but we are also in the regional offering when it comes to IP Transit and have sold connections to many former Cogent customers who were fed up and left. I have found with Cogent that you will get a LOT of varying opinions on them - there are several other players (at least in our market) that are priced very similar now and have a better history behind them. The specific de-peering issues never effected us much due to enough diversity in our upstreams and a fair amount of direct/public peering... Thanks, Paul -Original Message- From: Justin Shore [mailto:jus...@justinshore.com] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 9:47 AM To: NANOG Subject: Cogent input I'm in search of some information about Cogent, it's past, present and future. I've heard bits and pieces about Cogent's past over the years but by no means have I actively been keeping up. I'm aware of some (regular?) depeering issues. The NANOG archives have given me some additional insight into that (recurring?) problem. The reasoning behind the depeering events is a bit fuzzy though. I would be interested in people's opinion on whether or not they should be consider for upstream service based on this particular issue. Are there any reasonable mitigation measures available to Cogent downstreams if (when?) Cogent were to be depeered again? My understanding is that at least on previous depeering occasion, the depeering partner simply null-routed all prefixes being received via Cogent, creating a blackhole essentially. I also recall reading that this meant that prefixes being advertised and received by the depeering partner from other peers would still end up in the blackhole. The only solution I would see to this problem would be to shut down the BGP session with Cogent and rely on a 2nd upstream. Are there any other possible steps for mitigation in a depeering event? I also know that their bandwidth is extremely cheap. This of course creates an issue for technical folks when trying to justify other upstream options that cost significantly more but also don't have a damaging history of getting depeered. Does Cogent still have an issue with depeering? Are there any reasonable mitigation measures or should a downstream customer do any thing in particular to ready themselves for a depeering event? Does their low cost outweigh the risks? What are the specific risks? Thanks Justin The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and contains confidential and/or privileged material. If you received this in error, please contact the sender immediately and then destroy this transmission, including all attachments, without copying, distributing or disclosing same. Thank you.
Re: Cogent input
At $JOB-1 we used Cogent. Lots of horror stories had been heard about them. We didn't have such problems. Had nx1Gig from them. On the few occasions where we had some slight issues, I was happy to be able to get through to some one useful on the phone quickly, and not play pass the parcel with call centre operatives. and at least in the quantities we were buying they were significantly better value than others, which was the primary reason we went with them. andrew On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Paul Stewartpstew...@nexicomgroup.net wrote: Our experience with them was at least one major (longer than an hour) outages PER MONTH and many of those times they were black holing our routes in their network which was the most damaging aspect. The outages were one thing but when our routes still somehow managed to get advertised in their network (even though our BGP session was down) that really created issues. I have heard from some nearby folks who still have service that it's gotten better, but we are also in the regional offering when it comes to IP Transit and have sold connections to many former Cogent customers who were fed up and left. I have found with Cogent that you will get a LOT of varying opinions on them - there are several other players (at least in our market) that are priced very similar now and have a better history behind them. The specific de-peering issues never effected us much due to enough diversity in our upstreams and a fair amount of direct/public peering... Thanks, Paul -Original Message- From: Justin Shore [mailto:jus...@justinshore.com] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 9:47 AM To: NANOG Subject: Cogent input I'm in search of some information about Cogent, it's past, present and future. I've heard bits and pieces about Cogent's past over the years but by no means have I actively been keeping up. I'm aware of some (regular?) depeering issues. The NANOG archives have given me some additional insight into that (recurring?) problem. The reasoning behind the depeering events is a bit fuzzy though. I would be interested in people's opinion on whether or not they should be consider for upstream service based on this particular issue. Are there any reasonable mitigation measures available to Cogent downstreams if (when?) Cogent were to be depeered again? My understanding is that at least on previous depeering occasion, the depeering partner simply null-routed all prefixes being received via Cogent, creating a blackhole essentially. I also recall reading that this meant that prefixes being advertised and received by the depeering partner from other peers would still end up in the blackhole. The only solution I would see to this problem would be to shut down the BGP session with Cogent and rely on a 2nd upstream. Are there any other possible steps for mitigation in a depeering event? I also know that their bandwidth is extremely cheap. This of course creates an issue for technical folks when trying to justify other upstream options that cost significantly more but also don't have a damaging history of getting depeered. Does Cogent still have an issue with depeering? Are there any reasonable mitigation measures or should a downstream customer do any thing in particular to ready themselves for a depeering event? Does their low cost outweigh the risks? What are the specific risks? Thanks Justin The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and contains confidential and/or privileged material. If you received this in error, please contact the sender immediately and then destroy this transmission, including all attachments, without copying, distributing or disclosing same. Thank you.
Re: Cogent input
At 10:01 AM 6/11/2009, Andrew Mulholland wrote: We didn't have such problems. Had nx1Gig from them. On the few occasions where we had some slight issues, I was happy to be able to get through to some one useful on the phone quickly, and not play pass the parcel with call centre operatives. This matches our experience as well. When there are issues, they are EASY to get a hold of and the people who answer the phone clueful and dedicated to dealing with IP issues, not can I help you with your long distance bill Also, they are pretty good about keeping us informed about maintenance issues. I would not use them as a sole provider (why run your own AS if you only have one transit provider?) but certainly I am happy keeping them in the mix to date. We havent seen the same level of issues as some people in YYZ have seen, but I think that seems to be more on their 100Mb connections for some reason. On the gig service we are on, they are fairly reliable. Not quite as good as TATA/Teleglobe has been for us however. ---Mike
Re: Cogent input
On Jun 11, 2009, at 10:13 AM, Mike Tancsa wrote: At 10:01 AM 6/11/2009, Andrew Mulholland wrote: We didn't have such problems. Had nx1Gig from them. On the few occasions where we had some slight issues, I was happy to be able to get through to some one useful on the phone quickly, and not play pass the parcel with call centre operatives. This matches our experience as well. When there are issues, they are EASY to get a hold of and the people who answer the phone clueful and dedicated to dealing with IP issues, not can I help you with your long distance bill Also, they are pretty good about keeping us informed about maintenance issues. I would not use them as a sole provider (why run your own AS if you only have one transit provider?) but certainly I am happy keeping them in the mix to date. +1 from here. Marshall We havent seen the same level of issues as some people in YYZ have seen, but I think that seems to be more on their 100Mb connections for some reason. On the gig service we are on, they are fairly reliable. Not quite as good as TATA/Teleglobe has been for us however. ---Mike
Re: Cogent input
Should have said And, they have no plans to deploy IPv6 in the immediate future. On Thursday 11 June 2009 10:33:25 Stephen Kratzer wrote: We've only recently started using Cogent transit, but it's been stable since its introduction 6 months ago. Turn-up was a bit rocky since we never received engineering details, and engineering was atypical in that two eBGP sessions were established, one just to advertise loopbacks, and another for the actual feed. The biggest issue we have with them is that they don't allow deaggregation. If you've been allocated a prefix of length yy, they'll accept only x.x.x.x/yy, not x.x.x.x/yy le 24. Yes, sometimes deaggregation is necessary or desirable even if only temporarily. And, they have no plans to support IPv6. Cogent's official stance on IPv6 is that we will deploy IPv6 when it becomes a commercial necessity. We have tested IPv6 and we have our plan for rolling it out, but there are no commercial drivers to spend money to upgrade a network to IPv6 for no real return on investment. Stephen Kratzer Network Engineer CTI Networks, Inc. On Thursday 11 June 2009 09:46:45 Justin Shore wrote: I'm in search of some information about Cogent, it's past, present and future. I've heard bits and pieces about Cogent's past over the years but by no means have I actively been keeping up. I'm aware of some (regular?) depeering issues. The NANOG archives have given me some additional insight into that (recurring?) problem. The reasoning behind the depeering events is a bit fuzzy though. I would be interested in people's opinion on whether or not they should be consider for upstream service based on this particular issue. Are there any reasonable mitigation measures available to Cogent downstreams if (when?) Cogent were to be depeered again? My understanding is that at least on previous depeering occasion, the depeering partner simply null-routed all prefixes being received via Cogent, creating a blackhole essentially. I also recall reading that this meant that prefixes being advertised and received by the depeering partner from other peers would still end up in the blackhole. The only solution I would see to this problem would be to shut down the BGP session with Cogent and rely on a 2nd upstream. Are there any other possible steps for mitigation in a depeering event? I also know that their bandwidth is extremely cheap. This of course creates an issue for technical folks when trying to justify other upstream options that cost significantly more but also don't have a damaging history of getting depeered. Does Cogent still have an issue with depeering? Are there any reasonable mitigation measures or should a downstream customer do any thing in particular to ready themselves for a depeering event? Does their low cost outweigh the risks? What are the specific risks? Thanks Justin
Re: Cogent input
Stephen Kratzer wrote: And, they have no plans to support IPv6. Ouch! I hope this is a non-starter for a lot of folks. Steve smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Cogent input
Hi Justin, I'm in search of some information about Cogent, it's past, present and future. I've heard bits and pieces about Cogent's past over the years but by no means have I actively been keeping up. We recently got a 10-gig port in Oslo from them. Price-wise they were competitive but absolutely not in a leauge of their own - a couple of other large providers matched their offers. In the end the main differencing factor for us was that their PoP happened to be in the same building as our data centre, so no local access was required (unlike the others). The link hasn't been up for very long so I can't comment on long-term reliability issues, but so far I've been _very_ happy with them, everything was up and running just a couple of days after we ordered, and the staff we've had contact with have been knowledgeable and helpful. The service has performed as expected: latency has been low and I haven't noticed any sub-optimal routing (trampolines) or packet loss. We multihome, so we're not too concerned about potential de-peerings. I would not single-home to any of the transit-free networks anyway, as any of them could end up on the receiving end of a de-peering. Best regards, -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ Tel: +47 21 54 41 27
Re: Cogent input
I'm skeptical as to where this info came from since this seems nothing more then nay-say? if people are going to make grandiose statements then they should justify them with reputable evidence. I would be extremely surprised if Cogent engineering isn't working on a IPv6 plan or doesn't have one already in place. Bret On Thu, 2009-06-11 at 10:37 -0400, Steve Bertrand wrote: Stephen Kratzer wrote: And, they have no plans to support IPv6. Ouch! I hope this is a non-starter for a lot of folks. Steve
Re: Cogent input
Stephen Kratzer wrote: Should have said And, they have no plans to deploy IPv6 in the immediate future. On Thursday 11 June 2009 10:33:25 Stephen Kratzer wrote: We've only recently started using Cogent transit, but it's been stable since its introduction 6 months ago. Turn-up was a bit rocky since we never received engineering details, and engineering was atypical in that two eBGP sessions were established, one just to advertise loopbacks, and another for the actual feed. The biggest issue we have with them is that they don't allow deaggregation. If you've been allocated a prefix of length yy, they'll accept only x.x.x.x/yy, not x.x.x.x/yy le 24. Yes, sometimes deaggregation is necessary or desirable even if only temporarily. And, they have no plans to support IPv6. Cogent's official stance on IPv6 is that we will deploy IPv6 when it becomes a commercial necessity. We have tested IPv6 and we have our plan for rolling it out, but there are no commercial drivers to spend money to upgrade a network to IPv6 for no real return on investment. Stephen Kratzer Network Engineer CTI Networks, Inc. On Thursday 11 June 2009 09:46:45 Justin Shore wrote: I'm in search of some information about Cogent, it's past, present and future. I've heard bits and pieces about Cogent's past over the years but by no means have I actively been keeping up. I'm aware of some (regular?) depeering issues. The NANOG archives have given me some additional insight into that (recurring?) problem. The reasoning behind the depeering events is a bit fuzzy though. I would be interested in people's opinion on whether or not they should be consider for upstream service based on this particular issue. Are there any reasonable mitigation measures available to Cogent downstreams if (when?) Cogent were to be depeered again? My understanding is that at least on previous depeering occasion, the depeering partner simply null-routed all prefixes being received via Cogent, creating a blackhole essentially. I also recall reading that this meant that prefixes being advertised and received by the depeering partner from other peers would still end up in the blackhole. The only solution I would see to this problem would be to shut down the BGP session with Cogent and rely on a 2nd upstream. Are there any other possible steps for mitigation in a depeering event? I also know that their bandwidth is extremely cheap. This of course creates an issue for technical folks when trying to justify other upstream options that cost significantly more but also don't have a damaging history of getting depeered. Does Cogent still have an issue with depeering? Are there any reasonable mitigation measures or should a downstream customer do any thing in particular to ready themselves for a depeering event? Does their low cost outweigh the risks? What are the specific risks? Thanks Justin In Europe they have been good and stable most of the time. In the US well, they are cogent and I have so many bad experiences with them here I cannot in all honestly recommend them. But if your looking for cheap bandwidth to complement another provider its not an unreasonable thing to do as they price point is competitive. Manolo
Re: Cogent input
We've been using Cogent for 4 months now and I have no major complaints.
Re: Cogent input
Hello, * Stephen Kratzer We've only recently started using Cogent transit, but it's been stable since its introduction 6 months ago. Turn-up was a bit rocky since we never received engineering details, and engineering was atypical in that two eBGP sessions were established, one just to advertise loopbacks, and another for the actual feed. The biggest issue we have with them is that they don't allow deaggregation. If you've been allocated a prefix of length yy, they'll accept only x.x.x.x/yy, not x.x.x.x/yy le 24. Yes, sometimes deaggregation is necessary or desirable even if only temporarily. Interesting. I requested exactly that when filling in their BGP questionnaire, and they set it up - no questions asked. Also, we have a perfectly normal single BGP session. The loopback address of the router we're connected to is found within the 38.0.0.0/8 prefix, which they announce to us over that session like any other route. And, they have no plans to support IPv6. I have been promised, in writing, that they will provide us with native IPv6 transit before the end of the year. I'm based in Europe, though. Perhaps they're more flexible and customer-friendly here than in the US? Best regards, -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ Tel: +47 21 54 41 27
Re: Cogent input
On Jun 11, 2009, at 9:33 AM, Stephen Kratzer wrote: The biggest issue we have with them is that they don't allow deaggregation. If you've been allocated a prefix of length yy, they'll accept only x.x.x.x/yy, not x.x.x.x/yy le 24. Yes, sometimes deaggregation is necessary or desirable even if only temporarily. In our peering session with Cogent, we requested several /16 le /24 prefixes configured and received no pushback or problems. We are using their 1Gbps service so I'm not sure if that buys us additional leeway with requests like this or not. We've been customers for nearly two full years and intend to continue for at least a third. -brad fleming
Re: Cogent input
Perhaps you missed my quote: Cogent's official stance on IPv6 is that we will deploy IPv6 when it becomes a commercial necessity. We have tested IPv6 and we have our plan for rolling it out, but there are no commercial drivers to spend money to upgrade a network to IPv6 for no real return on investment. This came rom a contact at Cogent (not sure of the role, probably sales rep). On Thursday 11 June 2009 10:49:13 Bret Clark wrote: I'm skeptical as to where this info came from since this seems nothing more then nay-say? if people are going to make grandiose statements then they should justify them with reputable evidence. I would be extremely surprised if Cogent engineering isn't working on a IPv6 plan or doesn't have one already in place. Bret On Thu, 2009-06-11 at 10:37 -0400, Steve Bertrand wrote: Stephen Kratzer wrote: And, they have no plans to support IPv6. Ouch! I hope this is a non-starter for a lot of folks. Steve
Re: Cogent input
Perhaps you missed my amendment: Should have said And, they have no plans to deploy IPv6 in the immediate future. :) On Thursday 11 June 2009 11:06:38 Bret Clark wrote: Far different response then whoever quoted...And, they have no plans to support IPv6. On Thu, 2009-06-11 at 11:03 -0400, Stephen Kratzer wrote: Perhaps you missed my quote: Cogent's official stance on IPv6 is that we will deploy IPv6 when it becomes a commercial necessity. We have tested IPv6 and we have our plan for rolling it out, but there are no commercial drivers to spend money to upgrade a network to IPv6 for no real return on investment. This came rom a contact at Cogent (not sure of the role, probably sales rep). On Thursday 11 June 2009 10:49:13 Bret Clark wrote: I'm skeptical as to where this info came from since this seems nothing more then nay-say? if people are going to make grandiose statements then they should justify them with reputable evidence. I would be extremely surprised if Cogent engineering isn't working on a IPv6 plan or doesn't have one already in place. Bret On Thu, 2009-06-11 at 10:37 -0400, Steve Bertrand wrote: Stephen Kratzer wrote: And, they have no plans to support IPv6. Ouch! I hope this is a non-starter for a lot of folks. Steve
Re: Cogent input
Hi! Cogent's official stance on IPv6 is that we will deploy IPv6 when it becomes a commercial necessity. We have tested IPv6 and we have our plan for rolling it out, but there are no commercial drivers to spend money to upgrade a network to IPv6 for no real return on investment. Thats strange they are running pilots with customers on v6 in Amsterdam. Not really so strange. ISPs often pilot features (v6, multicast, etc) that they have no immediate intention of deploying, so that they have experience if and when it becomes profitable/sensible to deploy them. Not from what i have been told, but hey i am not working there. We got a v6 transit offer as pilot from them so perhaps they are moving towards live service Would not be strange in this current stage... Bye, Raymond.
Re: Cogent input
On Jun 11, 2009, at 11:03 AM, Stephen Kratzer wrote: Perhaps you missed my quote: Cogent's official stance on IPv6 is that we will deploy IPv6 when it becomes a commercial necessity. We have tested IPv6 and we have our plan for rolling it out, but there are no commercial drivers to spend money to upgrade a network to IPv6 for no real return on investment. FWIW, they have said basically the same thing about multicast. Regards Marshall This came rom a contact at Cogent (not sure of the role, probably sales rep). On Thursday 11 June 2009 10:49:13 Bret Clark wrote: I'm skeptical as to where this info came from since this seems nothing more then nay-say? if people are going to make grandiose statements then they should justify them with reputable evidence. I would be extremely surprised if Cogent engineering isn't working on a IPv6 plan or doesn't have one already in place. Bret On Thu, 2009-06-11 at 10:37 -0400, Steve Bertrand wrote: Stephen Kratzer wrote: And, they have no plans to support IPv6. Ouch! I hope this is a non-starter for a lot of folks. Steve
Re: Cogent input
Here as well. We're a small content provider, and we have cogent as one of our ISPs. Though I wouldn't feel comfortable using only them, my experience has been pretty good. Their NOC is competent, and service has been reliable. seph Bret Clark bcl...@spectraaccess.com writes: I hate when these questions get asked, because as the saying goes...a person happy with a service will only tell one other person, but a person unhappy with a service with tell ten other people. So I think a lot of times you'll get skewed responses...but with that said, we've been using Cogent now for a year and no complaints at all. Had some minor downtime back in April due to a hardware failure, but Cogent responded extremely quickly, scheduled an emergency maintainance and had us running rather quickly. Face it, hardware problems happen so I can't blame Cogent on the failure. The few times I've dealt with their tech support group I found 99% of them very knowledgeable and I know that when we initially turned on the link they went the extra mile to resolve some initial problems during the weekend time frame. My 2 cents and with any provider mileage will vary, Bret On Thu, 2009-06-11 at 15:01 +0100, Andrew Mulholland wrote: At $JOB-1 we used Cogent. Lots of horror stories had been heard about them. We didn't have such problems. Had nx1Gig from them. On the few occasions where we had some slight issues, I was happy to be able to get through to some one useful on the phone quickly, and not play pass the parcel with call centre operatives. and at least in the quantities we were buying they were significantly better value than others, which was the primary reason we went with them. andrew On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Paul Stewartpstew...@nexicomgroup.net wrote: Our experience with them was at least one major (longer than an hour) outages PER MONTH and many of those times they were black holing our routes in their network which was the most damaging aspect. The outages were one thing but when our routes still somehow managed to get advertised in their network (even though our BGP session was down) that really created issues. I have heard from some nearby folks who still have service that it's gotten better, but we are also in the regional offering when it comes to IP Transit and have sold connections to many former Cogent customers who were fed up and left. I have found with Cogent that you will get a LOT of varying opinions on them - there are several other players (at least in our market) that are priced very similar now and have a better history behind them. The specific de-peering issues never effected us much due to enough diversity in our upstreams and a fair amount of direct/public peering... Thanks, Paul -Original Message- From: Justin Shore [mailto:jus...@justinshore.com] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 9:47 AM To: NANOG Subject: Cogent input I'm in search of some information about Cogent, it's past, present and future. I've heard bits and pieces about Cogent's past over the years but by no means have I actively been keeping up. I'm aware of some (regular?) depeering issues. The NANOG archives have given me some additional insight into that (recurring?) problem. The reasoning behind the depeering events is a bit fuzzy though. I would be interested in people's opinion on whether or not they should be consider for upstream service based on this particular issue. Are there any reasonable mitigation measures available to Cogent downstreams if (when?) Cogent were to be depeered again? My understanding is that at least on previous depeering occasion, the depeering partner simply null-routed all prefixes being received via Cogent, creating a blackhole essentially. I also recall reading that this meant that prefixes being advertised and received by the depeering partner from other peers would still end up in the blackhole. The only solution I would see to this problem would be to shut down the BGP session with Cogent and rely on a 2nd upstream. Are there any other possible steps for mitigation in a depeering event? I also know that their bandwidth is extremely cheap. This of course creates an issue for technical folks when trying to justify other upstream options that cost significantly more but also don't have a damaging history of getting depeered. Does Cogent still have an issue with depeering? Are there any reasonable mitigation measures or should a downstream customer do any thing in particular to ready themselves for a depeering event? Does their low cost outweigh the risks? What are the specific risks? Thanks Justin The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and
RE: Cogent input
I'm aware of some (regular?) depeering issues. The NANOG archives have AFAIR, there has never been a black-holing, just disappearance of routes. If you are properly multihomed, this is irrelevant and you continue to eat your ice cream and chuckle while they fight it out. It's amusing, really. I also know that their bandwidth is extremely cheap. This of course creates an issue for technical folks when trying to justify other upstream options that cost significantly more but also don't have a damaging history of getting depeered. It's not as relatively cheap as it used to be. A variety of others can be had in the same ballpark (Telia, Tiscali, Seabone, etc.)
Re: Any2 Exchange experiences to share?
On Jun 11, 2009, at 3:56 AM, Michael J McCafferty wrote: I am interested to hear any experiences with the Any2 Exchange at One Wilshire Blvd, especially regarding performance and reliability to the other exchange participants in comparison to routing to the same networks via Tier 1 transit providers. We are in San Diego and have easy access to the exchange via transport offered by our data center facility who does have physical presence at OWB, but *we* are not physically in OWB, ~4.5ms away and some $ for transport to OWB. All things considered, the cost will be about the same to route via Tier 1 transit providers from San Diego as it will be to transport to OWB to the exchange. The basic question is, Does it improve my network enough to connect to the exchange? If it's cost neutral, I'd go with peering. Additional vectors / choices are always useful. Plus as your network grows, you will get a cost benefit from the peering as that is fixed- cost. (Actually a step function as you upgrade, but you get the point.) Any2 runs a fine IX. Very few problems. OWB has had some issues with power in the past, but I think (hope) they are all resolved. -- TTFN, patrick
Re: Cogent input
On Jun 11, 2009, at 5:28 PM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote: Not from what i have been told, but hey i am not working there. We got a v6 transit offer as pilot from them so perhaps they are moving towards live service Would not be strange in this current stage... same thing here. routing table still looks pretty empty though: dan...@jun1.bit-2a show route aspath-regex .* 174 .* table inet6.0 | match BGP | count Count: 0 lines --Daniel.
Re: Cogent input
Tore Anderson wrote: advertise loopbacks, and another for the actual feed. The biggest issue we have with them is that they don't allow deaggregation. If you've been allocated a prefix of length yy, they'll accept only x.x.x.x/yy, not x.x.x.x/yy le 24. Yes, sometimes deaggregation is necessary or desirable even if only temporarily. Interesting. I requested exactly that when filling in their BGP questionnaire, and they set it up - no questions asked. It would be a show-stopper for us if they didn't let us deaggregate. We're not really wanting their service for our existing service area. We're wanting to use it to expand to a new service area that is only connected by a much lower-speed service back to the bulk of our current network for specific services like voice. Our PI space is currently broken up to 1) let us effect some measure of load-balancing with Cox (any prefixes we advertised out Cox instead of our much larger tier-1 resulted in a wildly disproportionate amount of preference given to Cox; not sure why) and 2) let this new venture get started with a reasonably-sized allotment of IP. It will be advertised out local providers in that area and also at our main peering point with significant prepending. Visa versa for our other prefixes. We have to deaggregate a little bit to make this work (but not excessively of course). I have been promised, in writing, that they will provide us with native IPv6 transit before the end of the year. I hope at least some SPs make this commitment back in the states. I can't find any tier-1s that can provide us with native v6. Our tier-1 upstream has a best effort test program in place that uses ipv6ip tunnels. The other upstream says that they aren't making any public IPv6 plans yet. It's hard to push the migration to v6 along when native v6 providers aren't readily available. Justin
Re: Cogent input
I hope at least some SPs make this commitment back in the states. I can't find any tier-1s that can provide us with native v6. Our tier-1 upstream has a best effort test program in place that uses ipv6ip tunnels. The other upstream says that they aren't making any public IPv6 plans yet. It's hard to push the migration to v6 along when native v6 providers aren't readily available. GlobalCrossing told me today I can order native IPv6 anywhere on their network. Don't know if they count as Tier 1 on your list, though. VZB has given me tunnels for a while, hopefully they'll get their pMTU issue fixed so we can do more interesting things with it. -Paul
RE: Cogent input
NTT (2914) and GBLX (3549) both do native v6... most everyone else on the tier1 list does tunnels. :( There are some nice tier2 networks who do native v6, tiscali and he.net come to mind. -John -Original Message- From: Paul Timmins [mailto:p...@telcodata.us] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 4:00 PM To: Justin Shore Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: Cogent input I hope at least some SPs make this commitment back in the states. I can't find any tier-1s that can provide us with native v6. Our tier-1 upstream has a best effort test program in place that uses ipv6ip tunnels. The other upstream says that they aren't making any public IPv6 plans yet. It's hard to push the migration to v6 along when native v6 providers aren't readily available. GlobalCrossing told me today I can order native IPv6 anywhere on their network. Don't know if they count as Tier 1 on your list, though. VZB has given me tunnels for a while, hopefully they'll get their pMTU issue fixed so we can do more interesting things with it. -Paul
Re: Cogent input
Does GBLX still have their data center in Chinatown(NYC)??? I remember about 10 years ago how amazed I was with that place... - Original Message - From: John van Oppen j...@vanoppen.com To: Paul Timmins p...@telcodata.us; Justin Shore jus...@justinshore.com Cc: NANOG na...@merit.edu Sent: Thu Jun 11 15:31:24 2009 Subject: RE: Cogent input NTT (2914) and GBLX (3549) both do native v6... most everyone else on the tier1 list does tunnels. :( There are some nice tier2 networks who do native v6, tiscali and he.net come to mind. -John -Original Message- From: Paul Timmins [mailto:p...@telcodata.us] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 4:00 PM To: Justin Shore Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: Cogent input I hope at least some SPs make this commitment back in the states. I can't find any tier-1s that can provide us with native v6. Our tier-1 upstream has a best effort test program in place that uses ipv6ip tunnels. The other upstream says that they aren't making any public IPv6 plans yet. It's hard to push the migration to v6 along when native v6 providers aren't readily available. GlobalCrossing told me today I can order native IPv6 anywhere on their network. Don't know if they count as Tier 1 on your list, though. VZB has given me tunnels for a while, hopefully they'll get their pMTU issue fixed so we can do more interesting things with it. -Paul
Re: Blackberry.net Email Administration Contact?
https://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=!%20RIM ab...@rim.com ipad...@rim.com On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 22:08, Mark Pacep...@jolokianetworks.com wrote: At the moment it appears as tho the blackberry email storm has subsided. I thought I'd share a most excellent letter I got from Blackberry after one of the Nanog users was kind enough to forward my email along to them: Hello Mark, Thank you for contacting BlackBerry Customer Support. We have determined that you purchased your BlackBerry product through one of our carrier partners. Your service provider fields general queries and provides technical support for all BlackBerry smartphone-related issues and can act as your first point of contact in these matters. You may also have the option to receive fee-based support directly from Research In Motion, the manufacturer and wireless experts for the BlackBerry solution. If you would like to learn more about this option, please dial the appropriate telephone number below and enter option 3 in the phone menu to be routed to BlackBerry Customer Care. If your organization has subscribed to BlackBerry Technical Support Services, please contact your IT department and have one of your named callers contact BlackBerry Technical Support. Note: BlackBerry Technical Support Services is an annual subscription program providing software maintenance and technical support services for your BlackBerry solution. Named callers are personnel within your organization who are authorized to contact our support staff. For more information on BlackBerry Technical Support Services, please visit: http://www.blackberry.com/support/tsupport/ All BlackBerry smartphone users have free access to the BlackBerry Technical Solution Center. The BlackBerry Technical Solution Center provides a repository of support information, documentation and frequently asked questions, with enhanced search capabilities so you can easily search for and find the BlackBerry support information you need. Please visit: http://na.blackberry.com/eng/support/ Thank you again for contacting us Mark and have a nice day. Sincerely, Lucky me! I can contact my non-existent carrier or I can pay for support on a product I don't own that is flooding my network! I feel privileged... pace Mark Pace wrote: If anyone has a contact within Blackberry.net's email department, I'd greatly appreciate it if you could get me in touch with them. We're getting hundreds of connections a second from their mail servers and have had to block them. Thanks in advance, Mark Pace -- BH
IPTV List serv
I know someone was asking about a VOIP list serv the other day. Well IPTV is another big area that could use a list. Check out https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/iptv-users/
Re: Cogent input
Good morning, * John van Oppen NTT (2914) and GBLX (3549) both do native v6... most everyone else on the tier1 list does tunnels. :( There are some nice tier2 networks who do native v6, tiscali and he.net come to mind. It's worth noting that being a v4 tier1/transit-free network doesn't necessarily mean that they're the same in the v6 world. For instance, Google appears to be a transit-free v6 network. It wouldn't surprise me if the same is true for other big v6 players like Tinet and HE. Anyway, when looking for v6 transit the following page might be useful: http://www.sixxs.net/faq/connectivity/?faq=ipv6transit Best regards, -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ Tel: +47 21 54 41 27
