> This is only tangentially related but it looks like HE has surpassed Cogent > on IPv4 adjacencies. That said the source probably suffers from a selection > bias at the very least. > > http://bgp.he.net/report/peers > > Hit reply by mistake instead of reply all.
> Todd Crane > >> On Mar 14, 2016, at 8:40 PM, Matthew D. Hardeman <mharde...@ipifony.com> >> wrote: >> >> It looks like Google is experimenting with a change in course on this issue. >> >> Here’s a look at the IPv6 routing table tonight on my router bordering >> Cogent. >> >> *>i 2607:f8b0:4013::/48 >> 2620:121:a000:f0::2(fe80::618:d6ff:fef1:c540) >> 0 150 0 15169 >> i >> * 2001:550:2:22::1d:1(fe80::12f3:11ff:fe29:2c24) >> 0 90 0 174 >> 6461 15169 i >> *>i 2607:f8b0:4014::/48 >> 2620:121:a000:f0::2(fe80::618:d6ff:fef1:c540) >> 0 110 0 6939 >> 6461 15169 i >> * 2001:550:2:22::1d:1(fe80::12f3:11ff:fe29:2c24) >> 0 90 0 174 >> 6461 15169 i >> *>i 2607:f8b0:4016::/48 >> 2620:121:a000:f0::2(fe80::618:d6ff:fef1:c540) >> 0 150 0 15169 >> i >> * 2001:550:2:22::1d:1(fe80::12f3:11ff:fe29:2c24) >> 0 90 0 174 >> 6461 15169 i >> >> >> This is only 3 IPv6 prefixes (out of 47 prefixes seen in my IPv6 routing >> table). Two of these prefixes I see via direct peering with Google and, >> alternatively, via Cogent through Zayo transit. One of these prefixes >> doesn’t advertise in Google’s direct peering session (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. >> >> >>> On Mar 13, 2016, at 9:31 AM, Dennis Burgess <dmburg...@linktechs.net> 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:dam...@supremebytes.com] >>> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 2:51 PM >>> To: Mark Tinka <mark.ti...@seacom.mu>; Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com>; >>> Dennis Burgess <dmburg...@linktechs.net> >>> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org> >>> 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, 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." >>
