Send them another cake… Owen
> On Mar 31, 2019, at 18:19 , Mike Leber <mle...@he.net> wrote: > > The routes you see are Cogent using IPv6 leaks. > > We chase these down as we see them. > > Obviously if Cogent is happy enough to use leaks, we could just give > them our IPv6 customer routes directly. ;) > > As a backbone operator, I'd prefer all routing we do (for at least the > first hop leaving our network) to be intentional. Perhaps they are the > same? > > Should I wait for to get an interesting email? (haha) > > Mike. > > > On 3/31/19 6:10 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: >> On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 6:07 PM Christopher Morrow >> <morrowc.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> thread subject still says 'google and he', I don't think there's ever >>> been problems between google/he for v6. >>> I think there are some issues from cogent - > he over v6 :( >>> >>> Looking at a sample AS6939 customer link I see no: >>> ".* 174$" >>> ".* 174 .*$" >>> >>> routes in the bgp stream :( >>> >>> Looking at a AS174 customer link session I see no: >>> ".* 6939$" >>> ".* 6939 .*" >>> >>> routes in the bgp stream :( >> Apologies, I do actually see a path from 174 -> 6939 (well 28 paths): >> 174 <many different 3-5 asn> 6939 <customer asn> >> >> it's clearly not all of HE -> Cogent, and it's clearly not supposed to >> be working (I would think). >> -chris >> >>> -chris >>> >>>>> Matt >>>>> >>>> Ah. Sorry, the changed subject line didn't thread in with this, >>>> so this showed up as an unreplied singleton in my inbox. >>>> >>>> Apologies for the duplicated response; at least this won't >>>> be a lonely singleton in anyone else's inbox now. ^_^; >>>> >>>> Matt >>>> >
