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? On Mar 15, 2016 12:50 AM, "Todd Crane" <todd.cr...@n5tech.com> wrote:
> > > 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." > >> >
