Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

I think the RFQ idea isn’t a bad one, but I doubt it will have any effect. Cogent already knows that they have customers leaving because of their peering wars. They don’t seem to care. However, if it’s going to be effective, I think the RFQ has to be achievable by most other networks. I propo

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

On 16/Mar/16 22:17, Owen DeLong wrote: > Sure, that’s valid and I’m not criticizing your decision. Just saying that > according to you, Cogent outright lied to you in 2014 and you let them get > away with it. I probably should have been clearer in stating that between 2010 and 2014, Cogent's IP

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

On Mar 16, 2016 10:06 AM, "Christopher Morrow" wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Dennis Bohn wrote: > > So if someone (say an eyeball network) was putting out a RFQ for a gig say > > of upstream cxn and wanted to spec full reachability to the full V6 net, > > what would the wording for

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

> On Mar 16, 2016, at 11:43 , Mark Tinka wrote: > > > > On 16/Mar/16 17:41, Christopher Morrow wrote: > >> my guess is the same as Owen's ... 'your rfq don't mean squat'. >> honestly it's not like people don't ask their cogent sales folk for >> this sort of thing, it's just not cogent's (clea

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Dennis Bohn wrote: > So if someone (say an eyeball network) was putting out a RFQ for a gig say > of upstream cxn and wanted to spec full reachability to the full V6 net, > what would the wording for that spec look like? Maybe require something roughly like this i

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

> On Mar 16, 2016, at 12:42 , Mark Tinka wrote: > > > > On 16/Mar/16 21:23, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> Please confirm that you in fact are receiving 174 * 6939 IPv6 paths from >> them? >> >> Seems unlikely to me. > > Nope (neither IPv4 nor IPv6) - they are about 1,500 IPv6 routes short > from

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

on (at least not in mine, >> but HE picks it up via Zayo and Cogent picks it up via Zayo). >> >> >> >> All of these are /48 subnets of their greater 2620:f8b0::/32 prefix, >> which does show up in both their direct session and in HE via Zayo. >> >> >

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

On 16/Mar/16 17:41, Christopher Morrow wrote: > my guess is the same as Owen's ... 'your rfq don't mean squat'. > honestly it's not like people don't ask their cogent sales folk for > this sort of thing, it's just not cogent's (clearly, given how long > the HE/Cogent thing along has persisted) w

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

On 16 March 2016 at 14:56, Dennis Bohn wrote: > So if someone (say an eyeball network) was putting out a RFQ for a gig say > of upstream cxn and wanted to spec full reachability to the full V6 net, > what would the wording for that spec look like? > Would that get $provider's attention? > But is

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

On 16/Mar/16 21:23, Owen DeLong wrote: > Please confirm that you in fact are receiving 174 * 6939 IPv6 paths from them? > > Seems unlikely to me. Nope (neither IPv4 nor IPv6) - they are about 1,500 IPv6 routes short from what we see from the others. You're welcome to poke if you want to test m

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Dennis Bohn wrote: > > On Mar 16, 2016 10:06 AM, "Christopher Morrow" > wrote: >> >> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Dennis Bohn wrote: >> > So if someone (say an eyeball network) was putting out a RFQ for a gig >> > say >> > of upstream cxn and wanted to spec

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

how up in both their direct session and in HE via Zayo. > >> > >> > >>> On Mar 13, 2016, at 9:31 AM, Dennis Burgess > wrote: > >>> > >>> In the end, google has made a choice. I think these kinds of choices > will delay IPv6 adoption. >

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

On 3/11/16 7:18 AM, Robert Jacobs wrote: Till we have exclusive content on IPV6 or it is a shorter, faster, bigger, better path then we are still fighting this uphill battle to get more adoption of IPV6 and it will not matter to the majority of Cogent customers that they can't get full IPV6 r

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

> >>> On Mar 13, 2016, at 9:31 AM, Dennis Burgess wrote: >>> >>> In the end, google has made a choice. I think these kinds of choices will >>> delay IPv6 adoption. >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Damien Burke [mailto

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

ices will > delay IPv6 adoption. > > -Original Message- > From: Damien Burke [mailto:dam...@supremebytes.com] > Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 2:51 PM > To: Mark Tinka ; Owen DeLong ; Dennis > Burgess > Cc: North American Network Operators' Group > Subjec

RE: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

: William Herrin ; James Milko ; > nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun > > I understand. I tend to take a more market by market view of each > network rather than a global perspective. Clearly, for the enterprise > use case with a diversity of users spread acro

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

l Message- >> From: Matthew D. Hardeman [mailto:mharde...@ipifony.com] >> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 1:41 PM >> To: Matthew Huff >> Cc: William Herrin ; James Milko ; >> nanog@nanog.org >> Subject: Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun >> >> I would ha

RE: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

To: Matthew Huff > Cc: William Herrin ; James Milko ; > nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun > > I would have concurred on this not so very long ago, but Cogent has made > serious strides in improving this. > > In particular, I think Cogent is fairly trustworth

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

; > >> -Original Message- >> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of William Herrin >> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 10:47 AM >> To: James Milko >> Cc: nanog@nanog.org >> Subject: Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun >> >>

RE: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

7 AM > To: James Milko > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 9:14 AM, James Milko wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 8:32 PM, William Herrin > wrote: > >> At the very least, no one who is clueful about "Th

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 9:14 AM, James Milko wrote: > On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 8:32 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> At the very least, no one who is clueful about "The Internet" is >> single-homed to Cogent with any protocol. > > s/single-homed/dual-homed/ > > It's not like losing Google/HE because y

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 8:32 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Doug Barton wrote: > > No one who is serious about IPv6 is single-homed to Cogent. Arguably, no > one > > who is serious about "The Internet" is single-homed on either protocol. > > At the very least, no on

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Doug Barton wrote: > No one who is serious about IPv6 is single-homed to Cogent. Arguably, no one > who is serious about "The Internet" is single-homed on either protocol. At the very least, no one who is clueful about "The Internet" is single-homed to Cogent with

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

On 13 March 2016 at 19:20, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > I come to the opposite conclusion - that this situation can persist with > apparently no business impact to either party shows that IPv6 is still > unnecessary. > It does in fact have business impact on Cogent (but not Google). It means that so

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

> On Mar 11, 2016, at 11:50 , Damien Burke wrote: > > 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

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

hink these kinds of choices will delay IPv6 adoption. -Original Message- From: Damien Burke [mailto:dam...@supremebytes.com] Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 2:51 PM To: Mark Tinka ; Owen DeLong ; Dennis Burgess Cc: North American Network Operators' Group Subject: RE: Cogent - Google

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

k Operators' Group > Subject: RE: Cogent - Google - HE Fun > > 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

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

ge- > From: Damien Burke [mailto:dam...@supremebytes.com] > Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 2:51 PM > To: Mark Tinka ; Owen DeLong ; Dennis > Burgess > Cc: North American Network Operators' Group > Subject: RE: Cogent - Google - HE Fun > > Just received an upda

RE: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

Operators' Group Subject: RE: Cogent - Google - HE Fun 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, apologi

Re: AW: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

> 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

RE: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

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 rou

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

> On Mar 11, 2016, at 06:16 , William Herrin wrote: > > 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 p

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

> On Mar 11, 2016, at 04:57 , Dave Bell wrote: > > 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 i

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

- Original Message - > From: "Mark Andrews" > I don't think anyone should be colluding to hurt Cogent or anyone > else for that matter and this thread appears to be heading in this > direction. I suspect a distinction could be made in court by a competent attorney between "colluding to

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Robert Jacobs wrote: > Don't like what Cogent is doing but just to bring this back to reality > Matthew and others out there... What content do you think Google has or any > other big content provider that is IPV6 only or gives an IPV6 only response > to a quer

RE: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

March 10, 2016 4:54 PM To: Mark Andrews Cc: North American Network Operators' Group Subject: Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun Mark, I certainly agree that intentional harm of a purely malicious nature is to be discouraged. What I proposed, as an alternative to some of the more extreme mechani

Re: AW: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

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 w

Re: AW: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

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 intention

Re: AW: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

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 expec

Re: AW: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

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 p

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

On 10/Mar/16 17:51, Owen DeLong wrote: > I think it’s a little different from what you say… > > I think Google already reaches Cogent for IPv4 via transit. > > Google, long ago, announced that they would not be purchasing IPv6 transit > and that they have an open peering policy for anyone who w

Re: AW: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

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 o

Re: AW: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

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

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

Freddy, As there is no IPv6 transit between HE and Cogent, this would have the effect of isolating ones network services from the single-homed customers of Cogent. I’m not sure that many of us could get away with that. Further, I’m not sure that it’s appropriate to punish the single-homed Cog

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

Mark, I certainly agree that intentional harm of a purely malicious nature is to be discouraged. What I proposed, as an alternative to some of the more extreme mechanisms being discussed, is a mechanism whereby IPv6 _customers_ of Cogent transit services--and who also receive IPv6 transit from

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

This would work for those which are using IPv6 transit from Cogent. For anyone else which is using IPv6 transit from Hurricane Electric and some other suppliers such as L3 or NTT: to set the community 'do not announce to Cogent' only on every other transit but HE would help to isolate Cogent wit

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

I don't think anyone should be colluding to hurt Cogent or anyone else for that matter and this thread appears to be heading in this direction. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

I have contemplated whether such mechanisms matter to Cogent, etc. I’m inclined to think that if Google is willing to pull the routes and they still don’t blink, then certainly us smaller shops aren’t going to impact them… However… If enough prefixes disappear from the _apparent_ Cogent table a

Re: AW: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

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

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

Re: AW: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

dwest-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, Denni

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

* William Herrin (b...@herrin.us) wrote: > Guys, that would be an important distinction if Cogent were providing > Dennis with free service. They're not. Regardless of what Google does > or doesn't do, Dennis pays Cogent to connect him to the wide Internet > which emphatically includes Google. I'm

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

> On Mar 10, 2016, at 09:29 , William Herrin wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> On Mar 10, 2016, at 08:24 , Chris Adams wrote: >>> Once upon a time, Owen DeLong said: In fairness, however, this is because he is not Google’s customer, he is Google’s p

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> On Mar 10, 2016, at 08:24 , Chris Adams wrote: >> Once upon a time, Owen DeLong said: >>> In fairness, however, this is because he is not Google’s customer, he >>> is Google’s product. >> >> False supposition; Google does actually sell serv

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

> On Mar 10, 2016, at 08:24 , Chris Adams wrote: > > Once upon a time, Owen DeLong said: >> In fairness, however, this is because he is not Google’s customer, he >> is Google’s product. Google is selling him (well, information about him >> anyway) to their customers. They gather this informatio

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

Once upon a time, Owen DeLong said: > In fairness, however, this is because he is not Google’s customer, he > is Google’s product. Google is selling him (well, information about him > anyway) to their customers. They gather this information by offering > certain things he wants in exchange for him

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

> On Mar 10, 2016, at 07:55 , William Herrin wrote: > > 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,

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 the

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

, 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 durin

Re: AW: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

> 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 > ag

RE: AW: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

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: Coge

RE: AW: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

al 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&#

re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

) FLSPEED x106 From: "Dennis Burgess" Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2016 11:12 AM To: "North American Network Operators' Group" Subject: Cogent - Google - HE Fun I just noticed that I am NOT getting IPV6 Google prefixes though Cogent

Re: AW: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

ID-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 tha

Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

merican Network Operators' Group" Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2016 10:01:12 AM Subject: 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,

AW: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

8a | 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 - Goo

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