RE: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Damien Burke]

Just received an updated statement from cogent support:

"We appreciate your concerns. This is a known issue that originates with Google 
as it is up to their discretion as to how they announce routes to us v4 or v6. 

Once again, apologies for any inconvenience."

And:

"The SLA does not cover route transit beyond our network. We cannot route to 
IPs that are not announced to us by the IP owner, directly or through a network 
peer."

RE: AW: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Damien Burke]

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]



http://bgp.he.net/AS174#_asinfo





-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of William Herrin
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 7:56 AM
To: Dennis Burgess
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group
Subject: Re: AW: Cogent - Google - HE Fun



On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Dennis Burgess 
> wrote:

> 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?



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







--

William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com 
 b...@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: 

RE: Southwest Airlines captive portal

[Damien Burke]

You should change your paypal password.

-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Frank Bulk
Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2016 10:27 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Southwest Airlines captive portal

Anyone from Southwest Airlines on this list?

On a recent flight I discovered I couldn't complete payment through PayPal 
because my web browsers properly noticed that the Southwest Airlines SSL 
certificate that the captive portal was giving for PayPal didn't match up.
=)  I had to create an exception for PayPal just to complete payment.

Frank

RE: Cogent & Google IPv6

[Damien Burke]

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.


-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Patrick W. Gilmore
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 12:12 PM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Re: Cogent & Google IPv6

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.

--
TTFN,
patrick

> On Feb 24, 2016, at 3:08 PM, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.nordd...@gmail.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Baldur
> 
> 
> 
> On 24 February 2016 at 20:46, Matt Hoppes <mhop...@indigowireless.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> 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?
>> 
>> 
>> On 2/24/16 2:43 PM, Damien Burke wrote:
>> 
>>> Not sure. I got the same thing today as well.
>>> 
>>> Is this some kind of ipv6 war?
>>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ian Clark
>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 10:25 AM
>>> To: NANOG
>>> Subject: Cogent & Google IPv6
>>> 
>>> 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 https://peering.google.com
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Ian Clark
>>> Lead Network Engineer
>>> DreamHost
>>> 
>>> 

RE: Cogent & Google IPv6

[Damien Burke]

Not sure. I got the same thing today as well.

Is this some kind of ipv6 war?

-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ian Clark
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 10:25 AM
To: NANOG
Subject: Cogent & Google IPv6

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 
https://peering.google.com


--
Ian Clark
Lead Network Engineer
DreamHost

RE: Cogent <=> Google Peering issue

[Damien Burke]

Cogent,

Can you stop peering with Verizon in the meantime? Please? D:


-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Fred Hollis
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 10:25 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Cogent <=> Google Peering issue

Yes, it's a global Cogent problem. We are in contact with them as well and were 
told that they're aware of that but can't do anything about it on their own.

> Dear Cogent Customer,
>
> Cogent NOC team has been working with Verizon as well as Google to assist 
> with resolving the issue. After further investigation there is no issue on 
> the Cogent network which is causing the issue that you are seeing. Currently 
> we have asked for  Google and Verizon to work together to assist with 
> resolving the issue which has been isolated to their end of the spectrum.
>
> As you can see, this issue is beyond Cogent control nevertheless, we continue 
> pushing to get it resolve. We will provide you with further updates as they 
> arise.

I am getting a "Destination unreachable" from their closest router. We did 
rerouting through a different carrier, so not a big problem for us, but still 
annoying.

> # ping6 ipv6.google.com
> PING ipv6.google.com(dfw06s47-in-x0e.1e100.net) 56 data bytes
>From te0-0-0-1.rcr12.sea03.atlas.cogentco.com icmp_seq=1 
> Destination
> unreachable: No route



On 18.02.2016 at 07:01 Damien Burke wrote:
> I am currently having a issue with cogent and google over ipv6. My traceroute 
> seems to hit cogent, Verizon, and then just dies.
>
> I have a case open with both and each tells me the other is working on it.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Max Tulyev
> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 1:35 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Cogent <=> Google Peering issue
>
> If my telepathy still works fine and I understood your question well - 
> then the answer is "NO, that is not a global well-known issue" ;)
>
> On 17.02.16 18:15, Fred Hollis wrote:
>> Anyone else aware of it?
>>
>

RE: Cogent <=> Google Peering issue

[Damien Burke]

I am currently having a issue with cogent and google over ipv6. My traceroute 
seems to hit cogent, Verizon, and then just dies. 

I have a case open with both and each tells me the other is working on it.

-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Max Tulyev
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 1:35 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Cogent <=> Google Peering issue

If my telepathy still works fine and I understood your question well - then the 
answer is "NO, that is not a global well-known issue" ;)

On 17.02.16 18:15, Fred Hollis wrote:
> Anyone else aware of it?
> 

RE: IGP choice

[Damien Burke]

Just use rip for *everything*

Problem solved!

-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mark Tinka
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 11:41 AM
To: marcel.durega...@yahoo.fr; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: IGP choice



On 22/Oct/15 18:57, marcel.durega...@yahoo.fr wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> Anybody from Yahoo to share experience on IGP choice ?
> IS-IS vs OSPF, why did you switch from one to the other, for what 
> reason ?
> Same question could apply to other ISP, I'd like to heard some 
> international ISP/carriers design choice, please.

The "everything must connect to Area 0" requirement of OSPF was limiting for me 
back in 2008.

So we moved to IS-IS.

Mark.

RE: Cogent BGP Woes

[Damien Burke]

I have not had a problem. Reach out to your account manager and have them put a 
rush on it.

I just did this last week and had no problem getting it setup.

If you don’t know your account manager reach out to: Smith, Christopher 
(csm...@cogentco.com)

-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Jürgen Jaritsch
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 11:45 AM
To: Justin Wilson - MTIN; NANOG
Subject: AW: Cogent BGP Woes

Hi Justin,

no issues in the past 6 months ... neither in Kiev nor in Dublin ... most of 
the time solved within 2-3 days.

best regards


Jürgen Jaritsch
Head of Network & Infrastructure

ANEXIA Internetdienstleistungs GmbH

Telefon: +43-5-0556-300
Telefax: +43-5-0556-500

E-Mail: jjarit...@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

-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] Im Auftrag von Justin Wilson - MTIN
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 15. Oktober 2015 20:38
An: NANOG 
Betreff: Cogent BGP Woes

Have the rest of you been having as hard a time I am having in turning up BgP 
sessions with Cogent? They have made it a sales order nowadays instead of 
support. I filled out the questionnaire on the support site over 3 weeks ago 
and was directed to sales.  I am going on 3 weeks waiting on a session to be 
turned up.  

Just wondering if I am alone.


Justin Wilson
j...@mtin.net

---
http://www.mtin.net Owner/CEO
xISP Solutions- Consulting – Data Centers - Bandwidth

http://www.midwest-ix.com  COO/Chairman
Internet Exchange - Peering - Distributed Fabric

RE: Microsoft blocking mail

[Damien Burke]

On an unrelated note - Microsoft is also currently blocking IP addresses used 
by MXLOGIC / MCAFEE SAAS / Intel Security


-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Chris Garrett
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 9:33 AM
To: NANOG
Subject: Microsoft blocking mail

Is there anyone on-list who can assist with an erroneous spam block to 
Outlook.com ?

One our our net blocks was added earlier today, 216.128.11.0/25 and I am having 
zero luck getting through to a clueful person at MS. 

Thank you!

Chris Garrett | Network Operations Director
tel: 678.370.2012 | mobile: 512.605.9620

RE: Charter and IPV6?

[Damien Burke]

Looks like charter just got a /28 of IPv6

http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET6-2600-2300-1/pft

-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Matt Love
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 2:39 PM
To: Robert Glover
Cc: nanog
Subject: Re: Charter and IPV6?

I just asked for it about a month ago in my area, they said the beta is just 
about to be over.

On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Robert Glover robe...@garlic.com wrote:

 As of 3mos ago, no :(



  Original message 
 From: Roy r.engehau...@gmail.com
 Date: 06/29/2015  2:15 PM  (GMT-08:00)
 To: nanog nanog@nanog.org
 Subject: Charter and IPV6?


 Has Charter rolled out IPV6 yet?  I have both fiber and cable 
 connections to Charter but I stopped asking them months ago.

 Roy
 ​​​

RE: Facebook outage?

[Damien Burke]

I hear that AIM and hipchat is also having issues. 

Any other major company down too?

-Original Message-
From: John van Oppen [mailto:jvanop...@spectrumnet.us] 
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 10:49 PM
To: Damien Burke; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Facebook outage?

Dead here at AS11404 from all locations where we PNI or public peer...   

must be bad over there, v4 dies at their edge, v6 makes it in but no page loads.

John

Facebook outage?

[Damien Burke]

Facebook outage? Everyone panic!

https://twitter.com/search?q=facebooksrc=typd

-Damien

RE: ASN Domain for rDNS

[Damien Burke]

Honestly, it looks pretty and you can see the ASN in the traceroute from 
windows/linux standard traceroute commands.

I don't think it's for white label as most ASN's have a company name in their 
WHOIS on ARIN/RIPE/ETC.

-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Fred
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 4:36 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: ASN Domain for rDNS

I'd say this is mostly for whitelabelling reason rather than a technical one?

Keefe John:
 I've been seeing more and more carriers(and even small ISPs) using 
 as.net as their domain for rDNS on IP space.  What are the pros 
 and cons for doing this versus using your primary business domain name?

 Keefe John

tools similar to stat.ripe.net?

[Damien Burke]

Hello,

Are there any tools similar to the routing tab at stat.ripe.net ?

To be more specific, I'm looking for the BGP route visibility feature.

-Damien