Re: AW: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Randy Bush]

> 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.

Ettore Bugatti, maker of the finest cars of his day, was once asked why his
cars had less than perfect brakes.  He replied something like, "Any fool can
make a car stop.  It takes a genius to make a car go."

Re: AW: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016, Dave Bell wrote:

I don't get this. Google are basically a hosting provider. If I set up 
my own website, I would expect to have to pay transit for it. If I ran a 
hosting business I would expect to pay transit. Why are google 
different?


If you had presence all across the world and were providing a sizable 
chunk of the world total traffic, you would probably reason differently.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: AW: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[William Herrin]

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 7:40 AM, Jon Lewis  wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2016, William Herrin wrote:
>> 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.
>
> That's one way of looking at it.
>
> However, which of your transits don't bill for bits exchanged with other
> customers of theirs...and how are they or you accounting for that traffic?

Hi Jon,

As you know, there is a technology limitation in how routing works
which says that for any given block of addresses you can, absent
extraordinary measures, have a peering relationship or a transit
relationship but not both. If both parties choose to have a transit
relationship, that excludes a peering relationship for the relevant
blocks of addresses. And that's OK when _both sides_ choose it.

In related news, no ethical conundrum demands defiance of the law of gravity.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

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

Re: AW: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Dave Bell]

On 10 March 2016 at 15:55, William Herrin  wrote:
> 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.

I don't get this. Google are basically a hosting provider. If I set up
my own website, I would expect to have to pay transit for it. If I ran
a hosting business I would expect to pay transit. Why are google
different?

Its Google's decision to decide not to pay for transit for v6.
Considering how open they are to peering, and how large their network
it, it probably makes a lot of sense. If you need to connect to a
transit provider, you can probably peer with google at the same
location.

Cogent is in the business of trying to provide transit. I understand
there are probably good business cases where you may want to set up an
SFI with someone like google, but at the end of the day that's their
choice.

I get the arguments that Cogent are supposed to be supplying a full
view of the DFZ, but if Joe's Hosting Company refuses to pay anyone
for transit, surely it is their own fault that their reachability is
compromised?

Regards,
Dave

Re: AW: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Jon Lewis]

On Thu, 10 Mar 2016, William Herrin wrote:


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.


That's one way of looking at it.

However, which of your transits don't bill for bits exchanged with other 
customers of theirs...and how are they or you accounting for that traffic?


--
 Jon Lewis, MCP :)   |  I route
 |  therefore you are
_ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_

Re: AW: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Mark Tinka]

On 10/Mar/16 17:25, Jon Lewis wrote:

> My guess is that GOOG is playing peering chicken with Cogent on "the
> IPv6 Internet" because doing so is low impact.  Doing this with v4
> routing would be far more painful to both GOOG and single-homed Cogent
> customers (probably make the news and make one or both look bad). 
> Doing this with v6 keeps it off in the shadows...both parties know its
> an issue, but its likely not seriously impacting anyone yet.  GOOG
> likely thinks they're big enough and their content desirable enough,
> that Cogent should peer with them.  Cogent clearly disagrees.  I'm
> sure GOOG would prefer SFI with Cogent for v4 and v6...but they're
> working on getting v6 first.

Assuming the IPv6 traffic is traversing the same physical ports as IPv4
between both networks, it is actually unnecessary pain to not pass IPv6
traffic across their interconnect relationship, unless removal of IPv6
peering lowers traffic utilization significantly to negate the need for
Google to pay a higher rate to Cogent, and/or delay physical port speed
upgrades.

Mark.

Re: AW: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[William Herrin]

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

> Anyone that complains about double billing doesn't apparently know how the
> Internet works and should relegate themselves to writing articles for
> GigaOm.
>

Mike,

I picture you saying that with a Godfather voice and going on to talk about
friendship and respect.

Some very popular practices on the Internet are also very corrupt. That
they have 'always' been that way makes them no less corrupt.

-Bill




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

Re: AW: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Fredy Kuenzler]

Am 10.03.2016 um 22:25 schrieb 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.


Alternative:

set community [do not announce to Cogent]

*SCNR*

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 
mailto:dmburg...@linktechs.net>> 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<mailto:her...@dirtside.com> 
 b...@herrin.us<mailto:b...@herrin.us> Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: 
<http://www.dirtside.com/>

Re: AW: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Mike Hammett]

Anyone that complains about double billing doesn't apparently know how the 
Internet works and should relegate themselves to writing articles for GigaOm. 
Oh 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 


- Original Message -

From: "William Herrin"  
To: "Dennis Burgess"  
Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group"  
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 9:55:30 AM 
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: <http://www.dirtside.com/> 

Re: AW: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[William Herrin]

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: AW: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Christopher Morrow]

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?
>

Did you check that on Cogent's LookingGlass?

"BGP routing table entry for 216.239.32.0/24, version 3740382954
Paths: (1 available, best #1, table Default-IP-Routing-Table)
  6453 15169
154.54.13.206 (metric 10102020) from 154.54.66.21 (154.54.66.21)
  Origin IGP, metric 4294967294, localpref 100, valid, internal, best
  Community: 174:10031 174:20666 174:21000 174:22013
  Originator: 66.28.1.9, Cluster list: 154.54.66.21"

is a lookup on: http://www.cogentco.com/en/network/looking-glass

if 216.239.32.0 - which holds ns1.google.com... I'd expect that
ns1.google.com would be routed via the majority of links 15169 has
with the world.

>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Lewis [mailto:jle...@lewis.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2016 11:26 AM
> To: Jürgen Jaritsch 
> Cc: Dennis Burgess ; North American Network 
> Operators' Group 
> Subject: Re: AW: Cogent - Google - HE Fun
>
> In other words, GOOG is playing peering chicken with Cogent for IPv6.  I'm 
> not surprised.  I suggested it during talks with GOOG roughly 10 years 
> ago...not saying I had any influence...I'm pretty sure I did not. :)
>
> GOOG wants Cogent to peer.  Cogent wants GOOG to pay for transit (from them 
> or someone else to get to Cogent).  If you're well peered / multihomed, it's 
> not much of an issue.  If you're a single-homed Cogent customer, you should 
> complain to Cogent that they're not providing full
> IPv6 connectivity.
>
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2016, Jürgen Jaritsch wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> mail from Cogent:
>>>>>>
>> 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.
>> <<<<
>>
>> Mail from Google:
>>>>>>
>> 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 <<<<
>>
>> 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-bounces+jjaritsch=anexia-it@nanog.org] Im
>> Auftrag von Dennis Burgess
>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 09. März 2016 17:01
>> An: North American Network Operators' Group
>> Betreff: Cogent - Google - HE Fun
>>
>> I just noticed that I am NOT getting IPV6 Google prefixes though Cogent at 
>> all. I was told google pulled all of their peering with Cogent?   If I bring 
>> up a SIT tunnel with HE, I get the prefixes but at horrible speed and 
>> latency .. anyone else?
>>
>> [DennisBurgessSignature]
>> www.linktechs.net<http://www.linktechs.net/> - 314-735-0270 x103 -
>> dmburg...@linktechs.net<mailto:dmburg...@linktechs.net>
>>
>>
>
> --
>   Jon Lewis, MCP :)   |  I route
>   |  therefore you are _ 
> http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_

RE: AW: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Jon Lewis]

My guess is that GOOG is playing peering chicken with Cogent on "the IPv6 
Internet" because doing so is low impact.  Doing this with v4 routing 
would be far more painful to both GOOG and single-homed Cogent customers 
(probably make the news and make one or both look bad).  Doing this with 
v6 keeps it off in the shadows...both parties know its an issue, but its 
likely not seriously impacting anyone yet.  GOOG likely thinks they're big 
enough and their content desirable enough, that Cogent should peer with 
them.  Cogent clearly disagrees.  I'm sure GOOG would prefer SFI with 
Cogent for v4 and v6...but they're working on getting v6 first.


On Thu, 10 Mar 2016, 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?


-Original Message-
From: Jon Lewis [mailto:jle...@lewis.org]
Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2016 11:26 AM
To: Jürgen Jaritsch 
Cc: Dennis Burgess ; North American Network Operators' Group 

Subject: Re: AW: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

In other words, GOOG is playing peering chicken with Cogent for IPv6.  I'm not 
surprised.  I suggested it during talks with GOOG roughly 10 years ago...not 
saying I had any influence...I'm pretty sure I did not. :)

GOOG wants Cogent to peer.  Cogent wants GOOG to pay for transit (from them or 
someone else to get to Cogent).  If you're well peered / multihomed, it's not 
much of an issue.  If you're a single-homed Cogent customer, you should 
complain to Cogent that they're not providing full
IPv6 connectivity.

On Wed, 9 Mar 2016, Jürgen Jaritsch wrote:


Hi,

mail from Cogent:



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.
<<<<

Mail from Google:



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 <<<<

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-bounces+jjaritsch=anexia-it@nanog.org] Im
Auftrag von Dennis Burgess
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 09. März 2016 17:01
An: North American Network Operators' Group
Betreff: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

I just noticed that I am NOT getting IPV6 Google prefixes though Cogent at all. 
I was told google pulled all of their peering with Cogent?   If I bring up a 
SIT tunnel with HE, I get the prefixes but at horrible speed and latency .. 
anyone else?

[DennisBurgessSignature]
www.linktechs.net<http://www.linktechs.net/> - 314-735-0270 x103 -
dmburg...@linktechs.net<mailto:dmburg...@linktechs.net>




--
 Jon Lewis, MCP :)   |  I route
 |  therefore you are _ 
http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_



--
 Jon Lewis, MCP :)   |  I route
 |  therefore you are
_ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_

RE: AW: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Dennis Burgess]

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?


-Original Message-
From: Jon Lewis [mailto:jle...@lewis.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2016 11:26 AM
To: Jürgen Jaritsch 
Cc: Dennis Burgess ; North American Network Operators' 
Group 
Subject: Re: AW: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

In other words, GOOG is playing peering chicken with Cogent for IPv6.  I'm not 
surprised.  I suggested it during talks with GOOG roughly 10 years ago...not 
saying I had any influence...I'm pretty sure I did not. :)

GOOG wants Cogent to peer.  Cogent wants GOOG to pay for transit (from them or 
someone else to get to Cogent).  If you're well peered / multihomed, it's not 
much of an issue.  If you're a single-homed Cogent customer, you should 
complain to Cogent that they're not providing full
IPv6 connectivity.

On Wed, 9 Mar 2016, Jürgen Jaritsch wrote:

> Hi,
>
> mail from Cogent:
>>>>>
> 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.
> <<<<
>
> Mail from Google:
>>>>>
> 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 <<<<
>
> 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-bounces+jjaritsch=anexia-it@nanog.org] Im 
> Auftrag von Dennis Burgess
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 09. März 2016 17:01
> An: North American Network Operators' Group
> Betreff: Cogent - Google - HE Fun
>
> I just noticed that I am NOT getting IPV6 Google prefixes though Cogent at 
> all. I was told google pulled all of their peering with Cogent?   If I bring 
> up a SIT tunnel with HE, I get the prefixes but at horrible speed and latency 
> .. anyone else?
>
> [DennisBurgessSignature]
> www.linktechs.net<http://www.linktechs.net/> - 314-735-0270 x103 - 
> dmburg...@linktechs.net<mailto:dmburg...@linktechs.net>
>
>

--
  Jon Lewis, MCP :)   |  I route
  |  therefore you are _ 
http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_

Re: AW: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Jon Lewis]

In other words, GOOG is playing peering chicken with Cogent for IPv6.  I'm 
not surprised.  I suggested it during talks with GOOG roughly 10 years 
ago...not saying I had any influence...I'm pretty sure I did not. :)


GOOG wants Cogent to peer.  Cogent wants GOOG to pay for transit (from 
them or someone else to get to Cogent).  If you're well peered / 
multihomed, it's not much of an issue.  If you're a single-homed Cogent 
customer, you should complain to Cogent that they're not providing full 
IPv6 connectivity.


On Wed, 9 Mar 2016, Jürgen Jaritsch wrote:


Hi,

mail from Cogent:



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.


Mail from Google:



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


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-bounces+jjaritsch=anexia-it@nanog.org] Im Auftrag 
von Dennis Burgess
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 09. März 2016 17:01
An: North American Network Operators' Group
Betreff: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

I just noticed that I am NOT getting IPV6 Google prefixes though Cogent at all. 
I was told google pulled all of their peering with Cogent?   If I bring up a 
SIT tunnel with HE, I get the prefixes but at horrible speed and latency .. 
anyone else?

[DennisBurgessSignature]
www.linktechs.net - 314-735-0270 x103 - 
dmburg...@linktechs.net




--
 Jon Lewis, MCP :)   |  I route
 |  therefore you are
_ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_