Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent
On mer. 8 mars 09:29:11 2017, Marty Strong via NANOG wrote: > I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s unwanted, where Telstra domestic is > announcing to Telstra International, who in turn announces to Cogent. I wouldn’t too, especially since I don’t see it anymore: alarig@nominoe:~ % birdc6 show route for 2a00:1450:4001:811::2003 BIRD 1.5.0 ready. 2a00:1450:4001::/48 via 2a06:e040:3501:101:2::1 on em0.21 [bgp_quantic 13:09:29] * (100) [AS15169i] via 2a00:5881:8100:ff00::142 on gre0 [bgp_arn_hwhost1 2017-01-30] (50) [AS15169i] via 2a00:5884:ff::13 on gre1 [bgp_arn_hwhost2 2017-01-30] (50) [AS15169i] And quantic now reaches them via HE. -- alarig signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent
I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s unwanted, where Telstra domestic is announcing to Telstra International, who in turn announces to Cogent. Regards, Marty Strong -- Cloudflare - AS13335 Network Engineer ma...@cloudflare.com +44 7584 906 055 smartflare (Skype) https://www.peeringdb.com/asn/13335 > On 8 Mar 2017, at 07:18, Alarig Le Lay wrote: > > On sam. 25 févr. 09:49:56 2017, Aaron wrote: >> Hi, I'm new to the nanog list, hope this isn't out of scope for what is >> usually discussed here. >> >> >> >> Cogent is telling me that I can't route through cogent to get to google ipv6 >> routes (particularly the well known dns addresses 2001:4860:4860::88xx) >> because google decided not to advertise those route to one of their mutual >> peers. >> >> >> >> Anyone know anything about this ? .and why it happened and when it will be >> resolved ? >> >> >> >> -Aaron > > Hi, > > Since this morning, I see again google routes from cogent: > https://paste.swordarmor.fr/raw/wnFQ > > But, with very bad latency. To go from Rennes (France) to Frankfurt > (Germany), it transits via Sydney, and still thought other ASes: > https://paste.swordarmor.fr/raw/PlSM > > -- > alarig
Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent
On sam. 25 févr. 09:49:56 2017, Aaron wrote: > Hi, I'm new to the nanog list, hope this isn't out of scope for what is > usually discussed here. > > > > Cogent is telling me that I can't route through cogent to get to google ipv6 > routes (particularly the well known dns addresses 2001:4860:4860::88xx) > because google decided not to advertise those route to one of their mutual > peers. > > > > Anyone know anything about this ? .and why it happened and when it will be > resolved ? > > > > -Aaron Hi, Since this morning, I see again google routes from cogent: https://paste.swordarmor.fr/raw/wnFQ But, with very bad latency. To go from Rennes (France) to Frankfurt (Germany), it transits via Sydney, and still thought other ASes: https://paste.swordarmor.fr/raw/PlSM -- alarig signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent
On 3/2/17 3:42 PM, Jared Mauch wrote: > Yes. Most providers can send you just their customer routes. If they send you > full routes you want to discriminate customer vs peer routes. This is > typically done with communities and is worthwhile as most people have > capacity on customer links but via peer it may not always be the case. > > As is usual YMMV It's relatively straight-forward to take a full table feed and accept into your fib only the routes you want from that table. I presented on variant of that based on my need for partial fib peering switches; but other reasons for doing so exist, e.g. defailt + te-overrides, prefix filters weighted by per prefix utilization and so on. In general I'd get the full table and the default if you intend to take the default but need recourse to over-rides (for example if your fib won't hold full table is an element of the design). if the Rib won't hold three full tables well that's a different sort of problem, and this may be the wrong router platform. joel > Jared Mauch > >> On Mar 2, 2017, at 2:52 PM, Aaron Gould wrote: >> >> Yes, thanks, I am going to do that. But, is there a middle ground between >> being default only and full routes ? Like is it advantageous for me to ask >> for partial routes (like their routes and direct peers and default route) ? >> This way I don't have millions of routes but I guess only a few hundred >> thousand or less? Let me know please. >> >> -Aaron > signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent
On Mar 3, 2017, at 9:05 PM, Job Snijders wrote: > On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 09:42:04AM -0500, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: >> On Mar 3, 2017, at 7:00 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote: >>> Niels Bakker wrote: As I explained in the rest of my email that you conveniently didn't quote, it's so that you can selectively import routes from all your providers in situations where your router cannot handle a full table. >>> >>> it can also break horribly in situations where the provider is providing >>> "transit" but doesn't provide full transit. >>> >>> OTOH, if you are single-homed, it is highly advisable to accept a >>> default, the reason being that most transit providers provide bgp >>> communities with "don't advertise to customers" semantics. So if you're >>> single-homed and use a full dfz feed without default route, you will not >>> have full connectivity to all the routes available from the transit >>> provider. > > Correct. > >> If you are single-homed, there is no need for BGP at all. > > That is very strongly worded, and in plenty of cases a false assertion. > >> And injecting your ASN into the table is probably not terribly useful >> to everyone else’s FIB. > > ASNs don't have anything to do with FIB. > >> There are, of course, corner cases. But in general, single-homed >> people shouldn’t be using BGP. > > There are numerous reasons to use BGP when single-homed: > >- as preparation to multi-home in the (near) future >- ability to quickly change providers >- to use BGP based blackholing features >- to save time on provisioning work (adding new prefixes becomes a > matter of just announcing and updating IRR/RPKI). >- loadbalanacing / loadsharing across multiple links >- ability to use bgp communities for traffic engineering > > In other words, if you have your own IP space, I'd recommend to get your > own ASN and use BGP. First, I said specifically there are corner cases. Everything you say above is a corner case. The sum of everyone in need of the above is to the right of the decimal compared to all single homed networks. Limiting it to “it you have your own IP space” makes the set even smaller. You are also reaching here. Preparation for multi-homing in the near future is just multi-homing. Adding prefixes is a very occasional thing, and in some cases is actually not easier with BGP. (Ever worked with some provider’s IRR implementation?) Etc. End of day, if you have your own space and only allow aggregates into the DFZ, even as a stub behind someone else, it doesn’t really save RIB slots compared to having the upstream announce it for you. My problem is making the exceptions sound normal. They are not, and we should not treat them as if they are. Else we will end up with people wanting to do it who do not understand what they are doing, polluting the table, etc. I stand by my statement. Single Homed Networks Should Not Use BGP. It is a good general rule. There are exceptions, but the exceptions are rare and should be approached with caution & clue. -- TTFN, patrick
Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent
In general I would not be single homed to a tier 1 ISP. You are better off using an ISP that has N upstream transit providers. That way they have multiple choices to select the best route. If you accept a default route from multiple upstreams you will be multi homed for inbound traffic but effectively single homed for outbound. Your router will select one default route and send 100% of the traffic that way. Instead of letting the router select a random default route, you should evaluate and rank your upstreams. Use a route map to set priority on the routes. Nobody has the best routes for all destinations, so you will have to find the one with the best average or perhaps the one that avoids bad routes. And that brings me to the point about Cogent. We used to have two upstreams. One was a local tier 2 ISP and the other was Cogent. Our quality was OK but if the tier 2 ISP link was down our customers would immediately call to claim downtime. We would not actually be down but quality was so low that people thought we were. The reason is that some major destinations from the Cogent network is routed from Europe to USA and back again. Latency go from a few milliseconds to 100 times worse. Available bandwidth is very reduced. Video from major streaming services will not play or only in lowest quality setting. I will claim that it is impossible to be single homed on Cogent in Denmark as an eyeball network. It is probably different if you are in the USA. This does not mean Cogent are useless. We were happy with the quality of the network and the price is good. What we experienced was bad peering. You just can't have them as your only transit. Regards Baldur Den 2. mar. 2017 21.02 skrev "Chuck Anderson" : Define "good" vs. "bad" transport of bits. As long as there is adequate bandwidth and low latency, who cares? On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 08:30:37PM +0100, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > That will have the effect of prioritizing Cogent routes as that would be > more specific than the default routes from the other providers. Cogent are > not that good that you would want to do that. > > Den 2. mar. 2017 20.16 skrev "Jeff Waddell" >: > > Or at least ask for a full view from Cogent - then you won't get any routes > they don't have > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Alarig Le Lay wrote: > > > On jeu. 2 mars 12:36:04 2017, Aaron Gould wrote: > > > Well, I asked my (3) upstream providers to only send me a ipv6 default > > > route and they sent me ::/0...here's one of them... > > > > Why did you don’t ask for a full view? With that, you can easily deal > > with that kind of problem.
Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent
On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Job Snijders wrote: > > There are, of course, corner cases. But in general, single-homed > > people shouldn’t be using BGP. > > There are numerous reasons to use BGP when single-homed: > > - as preparation to multi-home in the (near) future > - ability to quickly change providers > - to use BGP based blackholing features > - to save time on provisioning work (adding new prefixes becomes a > matter of just announcing and updating IRR/RPKI). > - loadbalanacing / loadsharing across multiple links > - ability to use bgp communities for traffic engineering > > In other words, if you have your own IP space, I'd recommend to get your > own ASN and use BGP. I concur with Job. If you are single-homed but care about having proper L3 redundancy (not just VRRP or equivalent), BGP is a must. ARIN has a policy to allow this, but it is not spelled out with an excess of clarity. I suspect it is not often used; see NRPM section 5. -- Jeremy Austin
Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent
On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 09:42:04AM -0500, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > On Mar 3, 2017, at 7:00 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > > Niels Bakker wrote: > >> As I explained in the rest of my email that you conveniently didn't > >> quote, it's so that you can selectively import routes from all your > >> providers in situations where your router cannot handle a full table. > > > > it can also break horribly in situations where the provider is providing > > "transit" but doesn't provide full transit. > > > > OTOH, if you are single-homed, it is highly advisable to accept a > > default, the reason being that most transit providers provide bgp > > communities with "don't advertise to customers" semantics. So if you're > > single-homed and use a full dfz feed without default route, you will not > > have full connectivity to all the routes available from the transit > > provider. Correct. > If you are single-homed, there is no need for BGP at all. That is very strongly worded, and in plenty of cases a false assertion. > And injecting your ASN into the table is probably not terribly useful > to everyone else’s FIB. ASNs don't have anything to do with FIB. > There are, of course, corner cases. But in general, single-homed > people shouldn’t be using BGP. There are numerous reasons to use BGP when single-homed: - as preparation to multi-home in the (near) future - ability to quickly change providers - to use BGP based blackholing features - to save time on provisioning work (adding new prefixes becomes a matter of just announcing and updating IRR/RPKI). - loadbalanacing / loadsharing across multiple links - ability to use bgp communities for traffic engineering In other words, if you have your own IP space, I'd recommend to get your own ASN and use BGP. Kind regards, Job
Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent
On Mar 3, 2017, at 7:00 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > > Niels Bakker wrote: >> As I explained in the rest of my email that you conveniently didn't >> quote, it's so that you can selectively import routes from all your >> providers in situations where your router cannot handle a full table. > > it can also break horribly in situations where the provider is providing > "transit" but doesn't provide full transit. > > OTOH, if you are single-homed, it is highly advisable to accept a > default, the reason being that most transit providers provide bgp > communities with "don't advertise to customers" semantics. So if you're > single-homed and use a full dfz feed without default route, you will not > have full connectivity to all the routes available from the transit > provider. If you are single-homed, there is no need for BGP at all. And injecting your ASN into the table is probably not terribly useful to everyone else’s FIB. There are, of course, corner cases. But in general, single-homed people shouldn’t be using BGP. -- TTFN, patrick
Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent
* n...@foobar.org (Nick Hilliard) [Fri 03 Mar 2017, 13:02 CET]: Niels Bakker wrote: As I explained in the rest of my email that you conveniently didn't quote, it's so that you can selectively import routes from all your providers in situations where your router cannot handle a full table. it can also break horribly in situations where the provider is providing "transit" but doesn't provide full transit. You don't need to import them into your border router's FIB. It's always good to be able to change your own routing policy without having to consult your upstream's NOC. -- Niels.
Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent
Niels Bakker wrote: > As I explained in the rest of my email that you conveniently didn't > quote, it's so that you can selectively import routes from all your > providers in situations where your router cannot handle a full table. it can also break horribly in situations where the provider is providing "transit" but doesn't provide full transit. OTOH, if you are single-homed, it is highly advisable to accept a default, the reason being that most transit providers provide bgp communities with "don't advertise to customers" semantics. So if you're single-homed and use a full dfz feed without default route, you will not have full connectivity to all the routes available from the transit provider. Nick
Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent
* how...@leadmon.net (Howard Leadmon) [Fri 03 Mar 2017, 01:06 CET]: On 3/2/2017 2:57 PM, Niels Bakker wrote: You should ask for full routes from all your providers + a default. If you taking full routes from everyone, why would you need a default? If they don't show a route for it, they probably can't reach it. I don't think I have run with a default route external for many years, and so far it hasn't bit me yet.. As I explained in the rest of my email that you conveniently didn't quote, it's so that you can selectively import routes from all your providers in situations where your router cannot handle a full table. -- Niels.
Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent
My own experience was that I tried to use the 2000::/3 route initially and that was fine with static routes in my lab, but once dynamic routing protocols were introduced, ::/0 was the only thing recognized as "default" to propagate or not with default-route statements in BGP and OSPF. That may vary from platform to platform, however the ones I played with all exhibited this behaviour. Theodore Baschak - AS395089 - Hextet Systems https://ciscodude.net/ - https://hextet.systems/ http://mbix.ca/ On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 8:01 PM, Dennis Bohn wrote: > Interesting question whether 2000::/3 or ::/0 is the better default route. > From what I can tell (as OP indicated) most are using ::/0. (I should > probably add for those who have not been running V6 for long that for the > forseeble future 2000::/3 is the extent of the V6 allocation, the rest > being held back for future use. Which is why that could be a default.) Is > there any case where 2000::/3 would hurt one? One person mentioned > something like 64:ff9b::/96, which per > http://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-special- > registry/iana-ipv6-special-registry.xhtml, > is the v4 to v6 translator net. Does anyone actually use that? > best, > dennis > > Dennis Bohn > Manager of Network and Systems (ret) > Adelphi University > b...@adelphi.edu > > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Baldur Norddahl < > baldur.nordd...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Shouldn't that be 2000::/3 ? > > > > Den 2. mar. 2017 17.06 skrev "Aaron Gould" : > > > > Correction... ::/0 is what I learn from those 3 :) > > >
Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent
Interesting question whether 2000::/3 or ::/0 is the better default route. >From what I can tell (as OP indicated) most are using ::/0. (I should probably add for those who have not been running V6 for long that for the forseeble future 2000::/3 is the extent of the V6 allocation, the rest being held back for future use. Which is why that could be a default.) Is there any case where 2000::/3 would hurt one? One person mentioned something like 64:ff9b::/96, which per http://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-special-registry/iana-ipv6-special-registry.xhtml, is the v4 to v6 translator net. Does anyone actually use that? best, dennis Dennis Bohn Manager of Network and Systems (ret) Adelphi University b...@adelphi.edu On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > Shouldn't that be 2000::/3 ? > > Den 2. mar. 2017 17.06 skrev "Aaron Gould" : > > Correction... ::/0 is what I learn from those 3 :) >
Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent
On 3/2/2017 2:57 PM, Niels Bakker wrote: You should ask for full routes from all your providers + a default. -- Niels. If you taking full routes from everyone, why would you need a default? If they don't show a route for it, they probably can't reach it. I don't think I have run with a default route external for many years, and so far it hasn't bit me yet.. --- Howard Leadmon PBW Communications, LLC http://www.pbwcomm.com
Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent
Yes. Most providers can send you just their customer routes. If they send you full routes you want to discriminate customer vs peer routes. This is typically done with communities and is worthwhile as most people have capacity on customer links but via peer it may not always be the case. As is usual YMMV Jared Mauch > On Mar 2, 2017, at 2:52 PM, Aaron Gould wrote: > > Yes, thanks, I am going to do that. But, is there a middle ground between > being default only and full routes ? Like is it advantageous for me to ask > for partial routes (like their routes and direct peers and default route) ? > This way I don't have millions of routes but I guess only a few hundred > thousand or less? Let me know please. > > -Aaron
Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent
I think the implication is that, on Cogent, there isn't. :) On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 14:00 Chuck Anderson wrote: > Define "good" vs. "bad" transport of bits. As long as there is > adequate bandwidth and low latency, who cares? > > On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 08:30:37PM +0100, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > > That will have the effect of prioritizing Cogent routes as that would be > > more specific than the default routes from the other providers. Cogent > are > > not that good that you would want to do that. > > > > Den 2. mar. 2017 20.16 skrev "Jeff Waddell" < > jeff+na...@waddellsolutions.com > > >: > > > > Or at least ask for a full view from Cogent - then you won't get any > routes > > they don't have > > > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Alarig Le Lay > wrote: > > > > > On jeu. 2 mars 12:36:04 2017, Aaron Gould wrote: > > > > Well, I asked my (3) upstream providers to only send me a ipv6 > default > > > > route and they sent me ::/0...here's one of them... > > > > > > Why did you don’t ask for a full view? With that, you can easily deal > > > with that kind of problem. >
Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent
Define "good" vs. "bad" transport of bits. As long as there is adequate bandwidth and low latency, who cares? On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 08:30:37PM +0100, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > That will have the effect of prioritizing Cogent routes as that would be > more specific than the default routes from the other providers. Cogent are > not that good that you would want to do that. > > Den 2. mar. 2017 20.16 skrev "Jeff Waddell" >: > > Or at least ask for a full view from Cogent - then you won't get any routes > they don't have > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Alarig Le Lay wrote: > > > On jeu. 2 mars 12:36:04 2017, Aaron Gould wrote: > > > Well, I asked my (3) upstream providers to only send me a ipv6 default > > > route and they sent me ::/0...here's one of them... > > > > Why did you don’t ask for a full view? With that, you can easily deal > > with that kind of problem.
Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent
* aar...@gvtc.com (Aaron Gould) [Thu 02 Mar 2017, 20:52 CET]: Yes, thanks, I am going to do that. But, is there a middle ground between being default only and full routes ? Like is it advantageous for me to ask for partial routes (like their routes and direct peers and default route) ? This way I don't have millions of routes but I guess only a few hundred thousand or less? Let me know please. You should ask for full routes from all your providers + a default. Then you write per-upstream import policies to permit or deny specific subsets of the prefixes they announce to you. For example, you could accept all prefixes from Cogent and your other upstreams tagged with a BGP community indicating they're from customers, and accept default from all except Cogent to take care of the rest of the traffic while still pretty much sending traffic to downstream customers to their respective upstream. (Or you can accept default from all but also import networks with whom Cogent has no direct relationship from your other upstreams; but that's less failsafe.) Depending on what router hardware you have and what upstreams, you may have to filter out additional prefixes to not overflow its FIB. -- Niels.
RE: google ipv6 routes via cogent
Yes, thanks, I am going to do that. But, is there a middle ground between being default only and full routes ? Like is it advantageous for me to ask for partial routes (like their routes and direct peers and default route) ? This way I don't have millions of routes but I guess only a few hundred thousand or less? Let me know please. -Aaron
Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent
Ah - you are correct So - yeah what Alarig said - get full routes from all On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > That will have the effect of prioritizing Cogent routes as that would be > more specific than the default routes from the other providers. Cogent are > not that good that you would want to do that. > > Den 2. mar. 2017 20.16 skrev "Jeff Waddell" com > >: > > Or at least ask for a full view from Cogent - then you won't get any routes > they don't have > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Alarig Le Lay > wrote: > > > On jeu. 2 mars 12:36:04 2017, Aaron Gould wrote: > > > Well, I asked my (3) upstream providers to only send me a ipv6 default > > > route and they sent me ::/0...here's one of them... > > > > Why did you don’t ask for a full view? With that, you can easily deal > > with that kind of problem. > > > > -- > > alarig > > >
Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent
That will have the effect of prioritizing Cogent routes as that would be more specific than the default routes from the other providers. Cogent are not that good that you would want to do that. Den 2. mar. 2017 20.16 skrev "Jeff Waddell" : Or at least ask for a full view from Cogent - then you won't get any routes they don't have On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Alarig Le Lay wrote: > On jeu. 2 mars 12:36:04 2017, Aaron Gould wrote: > > Well, I asked my (3) upstream providers to only send me a ipv6 default > > route and they sent me ::/0...here's one of them... > > Why did you don’t ask for a full view? With that, you can easily deal > with that kind of problem. > > -- > alarig >
Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent
Or at least ask for a full view from Cogent - then you won't get any routes they don't have On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Alarig Le Lay wrote: > On jeu. 2 mars 12:36:04 2017, Aaron Gould wrote: > > Well, I asked my (3) upstream providers to only send me a ipv6 default > > route and they sent me ::/0...here's one of them... > > Why did you don’t ask for a full view? With that, you can easily deal > with that kind of problem. > > -- > alarig >
Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent
On jeu. 2 mars 12:36:04 2017, Aaron Gould wrote: > Well, I asked my (3) upstream providers to only send me a ipv6 default > route and they sent me ::/0...here's one of them... Why did you don’t ask for a full view? With that, you can easily deal with that kind of problem. -- alarig signature.asc Description: PGP signature
RE: google ipv6 routes via cogent
Well, I asked my (3) upstream providers to only send me a ipv6 default route and they sent me ::/0...here's one of them... RP/0/RSP0/CPU0: 9k#sh bgp vrf one ipv6 uni neighbors abcd:1234::1 routes Thu Mar 2 12:33:23.644 CST ... Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best i - internal, r RIB-failure, S stale Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete NetworkNext HopMetric LocPrf Weight Path Route Distinguisher: 10.101.0.2:1 (default for vrf one) *> ::/0 abcd:1234::1 0 1234 i Processed 1 prefixes, 1 paths -Aaron
RE: google ipv6 routes via cogent
Shouldn't that be 2000::/3 ? Den 2. mar. 2017 17.06 skrev "Aaron Gould" : Correction... ::/0 is what I learn from those 3 :)
RE: google ipv6 routes via cogent
Correction... ::/0 is what I learn from those 3 :)
RE: google ipv6 routes via cogent
Thanks everyone, and my apologies. After I sent that email to you all, I did google for it and found that this has been a problem since ~ February 2016. Dang, that long?! In that case, I'm shutting down my ipv6 neighboring with cogent. I have 2 other inet v6 connections. I only learn 0/0 from all 3 isp's and I am not controlling which packets outbound where. I may change that and learn their prefixes and their peers, and then re-enable my cogent ipv6 bgp session then, but until then, I'm leaving it down. Thanks again y'all. RP/0/RSP0/CPU0:9k#sh bgp vrf one ipv6 unicast summary Process RcvTblVer bRIB/RIB LabelVer ImportVer SendTblVer StandbyVer Speaker 140140140140 140 140 NeighborSpkAS MsgRcvd MsgSent TblVer InQ OutQ Up/Down St/PfxRcd abcd:1234:efab:1212:1:1 0 174 55615 55615000 17:35:34 Idle (Admin) -Aaron
Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent
On sam. 25 févr. 09:49:56 2017, Aaron wrote: > Hi, I'm new to the nanog list, hope this isn't out of scope for what is > usually discussed here. > > > > Cogent is telling me that I can't route through cogent to get to google ipv6 > routes (particularly the well known dns addresses 2001:4860:4860::88xx) > because google decided not to advertise those route to one of their mutual > peers. > > > > Anyone know anything about this ? .and why it happened and when it will be > resolved ? > > > > -Aaron Hi, Cogent is not able to receive traffic from Google since February 2016, the case is the same with HE since 2010. So, as a quick workaround, you have to connect your network to another IPv6 transit operator for these destinations. I you don’t have this possibility, you can set up an IPv6-in-IPv4 tunnel to HE; the IPv4 traffic flows normally. -- alarig signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Alarig Le Lay wrote: > On sam. 25 févr. 09:49:56 2017, Aaron wrote:Hi, > > Cogent is not able to receive traffic from Google since February 2016, > the case is the same with HE since 2010. > > I think maybe that wording isn't quite correct: "is not able to receive traffic from ...' isn't really what's going on is it? I mean, it's not like the interfaces aren't able to push packets, is it?
Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent
Due to various peering disputes (notably with Hurricane Electric) Cogent just don't have all the routes in IPv6 (and should be regarded as a partial IPv6 transit only). One should not rely only on Cogent for its transit, anyway :) Don't count on any improvement soon. It was already discussed here one year ago... > On 25 feb. 2017 at 16:49, Aaron wrote : > > Cogent is telling me that I can't route through cogent to get to google ipv6 > routes (particularly the well known dns addresses 2001:4860:4860::88xx) > because google decided not to advertise those route to one of their mutual > peers. > > Anyone know anything about this ? .and why it happened and when it will be > resolved ?
Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent
Just Google for it.. this is probably one of the oldest running Klan dispute in the industry.. http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2009/10/22/peering-disputes-migrate-to-ipv6/ Regards. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net - Original Message - > From: "Aaron" > To: "nanog list" > Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2017 10:49:56 AM > Subject: google ipv6 routes via cogent > Hi, I'm new to the nanog list, hope this isn't out of scope for what is > usually discussed here. > > > > Cogent is telling me that I can't route through cogent to get to google ipv6 > routes (particularly the well known dns addresses 2001:4860:4860::88xx) > because google decided not to advertise those route to one of their mutual > peers. > > > > Anyone know anything about this ? .and why it happened and when it will be > resolved ? > > > > -Aaron
Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent
On Sat, 25 Feb 2017, Aaron wrote: Hi, I'm new to the nanog list, hope this isn't out of scope for what is usually discussed here. Cogent is telling me that I can't route through cogent to get to google ipv6 routes (particularly the well known dns addresses 2001:4860:4860::88xx) because google decided not to advertise those route to one of their mutual peers. Anyone know anything about this ? .and why it happened and when it will be resolved ? Google wants Cogent to peer with them. Cogent wants Google to buy transit or use another transit provider to reach Cogent. Check the archives for the dead horse. -- Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route | therefore you are _ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_
Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent
http://bfy.tw/AOcZ There's even a NANOG thread or two in there. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP - Original Message - From: "Aaron" To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2017 9:49:56 AM Subject: google ipv6 routes via cogent Hi, I'm new to the nanog list, hope this isn't out of scope for what is usually discussed here. Cogent is telling me that I can't route through cogent to get to google ipv6 routes (particularly the well known dns addresses 2001:4860:4860::88xx) because google decided not to advertise those route to one of their mutual peers. Anyone know anything about this ? .and why it happened and when it will be resolved ? -Aaron
Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent
Cogent refuses to settlement-free peer on IPv6 to Google and Hurricane Electric. The problem *in my mind* rests with Cogent trying to extract $$$ from said parties. Regards, Marty Strong -- Cloudflare - AS13335 Network Engineer ma...@cloudflare.com +44 7584 906 055 smartflare (Skype) https://www.peeringdb.com/asn/13335 > On 25 Feb 2017, at 15:49, Aaron wrote: > > Hi, I'm new to the nanog list, hope this isn't out of scope for what is > usually discussed here. > > > > Cogent is telling me that I can't route through cogent to get to google ipv6 > routes (particularly the well known dns addresses 2001:4860:4860::88xx) > because google decided not to advertise those route to one of their mutual > peers. > > > > Anyone know anything about this ? .and why it happened and when it will be > resolved ? > > > > -Aaron > > > > >
google ipv6 routes via cogent
Hi, I'm new to the nanog list, hope this isn't out of scope for what is usually discussed here. Cogent is telling me that I can't route through cogent to get to google ipv6 routes (particularly the well known dns addresses 2001:4860:4860::88xx) because google decided not to advertise those route to one of their mutual peers. Anyone know anything about this ? .and why it happened and when it will be resolved ? -Aaron