Re: Cogent IPV6 connectivity to fireball.acr.fi

I should have stated that I tried icmpv6, UDP, and TCP traceroute with the same results. Looks like Cogent is not returning TTL expired IPV6 packets within their core. I can only guess that this is a result of using 6PE and propagating the IPV6 TTL into MPLS. Clinton On Sun, Nov 3, 2013, at

Re: Cogent IPV6 connectivity to fireball.acr.fi

> On Nov 3, 2013, at 15:38, Clinton Work wrote: > > I can reach fireball.acr.fi on TCP port 80 so it looks like Cogent is > just filtering or dropping IPV6 traceroute packets. "Traceroute packets" is extremely vague. As a general rule, if you want to discover a complete path between endpoints tha

Re: Cogent IPV6 connectivity to fireball.acr.fi

I can reach fireball.acr.fi on TCP port 80 so it looks like Cogent is just filtering or dropping IPV6 traceroute packets. Thanks for checking connectivity from other locations. -- Clinton Work Calgary, AB On Sun, Nov 3, 2013, at 01:38 PM, Andrew Fried wrote: > From AS54054 in Ashburn, VA I

Re: Cogent IPV6 connectivity to fireball.acr.fi

PV6 connectivity to fireball.acr.fi is failing inside Cogent AS174. I > have already contacted the Cogent NOC, but I haven't heard anything back > yet. I'm wondering if somebody else with Cogent IPV6 connectivity can > run some tests. IPV4 connectivity is working fine. >

Re: Cogent IPV6 connectivity to fireball.acr.fi

cted the Cogent NOC, but I haven't heard anything back > yet. I'm wondering if somebody else with Cogent IPV6 connectivity can > run some tests. IPV4 connectivity is working fine. >

Re: Cogent IPV6 connectivity to fireball.acr.fi

> IPV6 connectivity to fireball.acr.fi is failing inside Cogent AS174. I > have already contacted the Cogent NOC, but I haven't heard anything back > yet. I'm wondering if somebody else with Cogent IPV6 connectivity can > run some tests. IPV4 connectivity is working

Cogent IPV6 connectivity to fireball.acr.fi

IPV6 connectivity to fireball.acr.fi is failing inside Cogent AS174. I have already contacted the Cogent NOC, but I haven't heard anything back yet. I'm wondering if somebody else with Cogent IPV6 connectivity can run some tests. IPV4 connectivity is working fine. -- Clinton Work

Re: Cogent IPv6

Here in the Netherlands we got it 'free' (i.e. dual-stack on top of the IPv4 transit without extra cost) But we're currently looking into an alternative for a provider with non-broken IPv6 transit and cancel our contract with Cogent. They called us once asking how satisfied we were with their I

Re: Cogent IPv6

On Jun 9, 2011, at 9:56 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > On 9 jun 2011, at 10:32, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> You can actually use DHCPv6 to assign addresses to hosts dynamically >> on longer than /64 networks. > > The trouble is that DHCPv6 can't tell you the prefix length for your address, > so

RE: Cogent IPv6

> > Some networks prefer a uniform numbering scheme. /112 allows for > reasonable addressing needs on a circuit. In addition, while Ethernet > is > often used in a point-to-point access circuit, such layouts may change > and renumbering would be annoying. > > Finally, having chunks 4-7 define the

Re: Cogent IPv6

Discussion has been had on-list before, suffice to say I respectfully disagree that there is a problem with the current design. On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > On 09/06/2011 18:19, Ray Soucy wrote: >> >> DHCPv6 does not provide route information because this task is handled

Re: Cogent IPv6

On 09/06/2011 18:26, Ray Soucy wrote: What OS? IOS, for example (as opposed to iOS which is just freebsd from that point of view). JunOS uses link-locals. Iljitsch noted: "IPv6 routing protocols also pretty much only use link locals". This is not true in the general case. Nick

Re: Cogent IPv6

On 09/06/2011 18:19, Ray Soucy wrote: DHCPv6 does not provide route information because this task is handled by RA in IPv6. Thankfully this silliness is in the process of being fixed, along with prefix delegation - so in future, there will be no requirement for either RA or cartloads of per-i

Re: Cogent IPv6

On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > On 09/06/2011 17:59, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: >> >> can't get a router's global address from this. IPv6 routing protocols >> also pretty much only use link locals > > Really?  I guess my eyes must be playing tricks on me then. > > Nick Wha

RE: Cogent IPv6

http://www.linktechs.net LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training - Author of "Learn RouterOS" -Original Message- From: Jeff Wheeler [mailto:j...@inconcepts.biz] Sent: June 09, 2011 12:14 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Cogent IPv6 On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 8:50 AM, ML wrote: > I guess som

Re: Cogent IPv6

On 09/06/2011 17:59, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: can't get a router's global address from this. IPv6 routing protocols also pretty much only use link locals Really? I guess my eyes must be playing tricks on me then. Nick

Re: Cogent IPv6

Don't assume that DHCPv6 is the same as DHCP. DHCPv6 does not provide route information because this task is handled by RA in IPv6. An IPv6 RA has flags for Managed (M), Other (O), and Autonomous (A) address configuration. None of these flags are exclusive. While most routers have the A flag se

Re: Cogent IPv6

On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 8:50 AM, ML wrote: > I guess someone with a >1 Gb commit in a not so small city deserves to be > charged extra for a few Mbps of IPv6... > > For a not so full table at that. We canceled some 10GbE Cogent circuits because of Cogent's refusal to provision IPv6 without adding

Re: Cogent IPv6

On 9 jun 2011, at 14:19, sth...@nethelp.no wrote: > It is perfectly possible to use RA *only* for the default router, and > not announce any prefix at all. This implies a link-local next hop. Router advertisements always use the router's link local address, you can't get a router's global addres

Re: Cogent IPv6

On 9 jun 2011, at 10:32, Owen DeLong wrote: > You can actually use DHCPv6 to assign addresses to hosts dynamically > on longer than /64 networks. The trouble is that DHCPv6 can't tell you the prefix length for your address, so either set up the routers to advertise this prefix (but without the

RE: Cogent IPv6 [IPv6 newbie alert!]

te: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 20:58:18 -0500 > From: Kelly Setzer > Subject: RE: Cogent IPv6 > To: "nanog@nanog.org" > Message-ID: >< > fc8abe0e5d384a489cdb16c4a8eb77839b3e9c6...@msmail01.luv.ad.swacorp.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="

Re: Cogent IPv6

> IPv6 newbie alert! > > I thought the maximum prefix length for IPv6 was 64 bits, so the comment > about a v6 /112 for peering vexed me.  I have Googled so much that Larry Page > called me and asked me to stop. > > Can someone please point me to a resource that explains how IPv6 subnets > large

Re: Cogent IPv6

On 6/9/2011 10:02 AM, William Herrin wrote: I follow the reasoning, but unless you attach undue importance to the colons you get basically the same result with a /124. I guess choosing /112 for a point to point link is one of the weird side-effects of placing :'s in the address at fixed location

Re: Cogent IPv6

On Jun 9, 2011, at 7:02 AM, Jack Bates wrote: > On 6/9/2011 1:58 AM, Aftab Siddiqui wrote: >> Still that doesn't give any reason to provide /112 for point to point >> connectivitiy. Seriously, I'm peering with a transit provider with /126 and >> when I asked for a reason they said, ease of manage

Re: Cogent IPv6

On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Jack Bates wrote: > Some networks prefer a uniform numbering scheme. /112 allows for reasonable > addressing needs on a circuit. In addition, while Ethernet is often used in > a point-to-point access circuit, such layouts may change and renumbering > would be annoy

Re: Cogent IPv6

On 6/9/2011 1:58 AM, Aftab Siddiqui wrote: Still that doesn't give any reason to provide /112 for point to point connectivitiy. Seriously, I'm peering with a transit provider with /126 and when I asked for a reason they said, ease of management. How come Subnetting /32 to /126 is ease of manageme

Re: Cogent IPv6

On 6/9/2011 4:39 AM, Tom Hill wrote: On Wed, 2011-06-08 at 23:39 -0400, ML wrote: Did Cogent have the gumption to charge you more for IPv6 too? We have a bit of transit from them (~20Mbit or so) to stay connected to their customers. Getting IPv6 setup was really simple. No extra charges. It's

Re: Cogent IPv6

> > Of course, just because you allocate a /112 (or shorter) in your > > database doesn't mean you have to use it. You could also allocate a > > /112 for a point-to-point link and use a /127 (e.g. addresses ::a and > > ::b). > > Please don't use /127: > > Use of /127 Prefix Length Between Router

Re: Cogent IPv6

> > You can actually use DHCPv6 to assign addresses to hosts dynamically > > on longer than /64 networks. > > > > However, you may have to go to some effort to add DHCPv6 support to > > those hosts first. > > Also, there is no prefix-length (or default router) option in DHCPv6, > so you have to c

Re: Cogent IPv6

On 09-06-11 14:01, Chuck Anderson wrote: > Please don't use /127: > > Use of /127 Prefix Length Between Routers Considered Harmful > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3627 Well, this RFC says not to use PREFIX::/127. You are safe to use other /127's within your prefix. -- Grzegorz Janoszka

Re: Cogent IPv6

> Please don't use /127: > > Use of /127 Prefix Length Between Routers Considered Harmful >    http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3627 Do keep up. :-) Rob

Re: Cogent IPv6

On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 01:32:58AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: > > IPv6 netmasks work exactly like IPv4 netmasks. You can even route > > /128's if you want. Two major caveats: > > > > 1. SLAAC (stateless autoconfiguration, the more or less replacement > > for DHCP) only works if the subnet on your L

Re: Cogent IPv6

On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 10:33:29PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, William Herrin said: > > Now, as to why they'd choose a /112 (65k addresses) for the interface > > between customer and ISP, that's a complete mystery to me. > > I had to ask this here a while back, so I can now shar

Re: Cogent IPv6

On Wed, 2011-06-08 at 23:39 -0400, ML wrote: > Did Cogent have the gumption to charge you more for IPv6 too? We have a bit of transit from them (~20Mbit or so) to stay connected to their customers. Getting IPv6 setup was really simple. No extra charges. It's been easier than via our existing L3 r

Re: Cogent IPv6

On Jun 8, 2011, at 7:24 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 9:58 PM, Kelly Setzer wrote: >> IPv6 newbie alert! >> >> I thought the maximum prefix length for IPv6 was 64 bits, >> so the comment about a v6 /112 for peering vexed me. I >> have Googled so much that Larry Page called

Re: Cogent IPv6

> I had to ask this here a while back, so I can now share. :-) > > IPv6 addresses are written as 8 16-bit chunk separated by colons > (optionally with the longest consecutive set of :0 sections replaced > with ::). A /112 means the prefix is 7 of the 8 chunks, which means you > can use ::1 and ::2

Re: Cogent IPv6

On 6/8/2011 9:51 AM, Nick Olsen wrote: I'm sure someone here is doing IPv6 peering with cogent. We've got a Gig with them, So they don't do that dual peering thing with us. (They do it on another 100Mb/s circuit we have... I despise it.) Just kind of curious how they go about it. Do they issue yo

Re: Cogent IPv6

Once upon a time, William Herrin said: > Now, as to why they'd choose a /112 (65k addresses) for the interface > between customer and ISP, that's a complete mystery to me. I had to ask this here a while back, so I can now share. :-) IPv6 addresses are written as 8 16-bit chunk separated by colon

Re: Cogent IPv6

On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 9:58 PM, Kelly Setzer wrote: > IPv6 newbie alert! > > I thought the maximum prefix length for IPv6 was 64 bits, > so the comment about a v6 /112 for peering vexed me.  I > have Googled so much that Larry Page called me and > asked me to stop. > > Can someone please point me

RE: Cogent IPv6

> -Original Message- > From: r...@u13.net [mailto:r...@u13.net] > Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 9:19 AM > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: Cogent IPv6 > > On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 09:51:21 -0400, Nick Olsen wrote: > > > I'm sure someone here is doing IP

Re: Cogent IPv6

On Jun 8, 2011, at 7:18 AM, r...@u13.net wrote: > On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 09:51:21 -0400, Nick Olsen wrote: > >> I'm sure someone here is doing IPv6 peering with cogent. We've got a Gig >> >> with them, So they don't do that dual peering thing with us. (They do it >> on >> another 100Mb/s circuit we

Re: Cogent IPv6

On Jun 8, 2011, at 6:51, Nick Olsen wrote: > I'm sure someone here is doing IPv6 peering with cogent. We've got a Gig > with them, So they don't do that dual peering thing with us. (They do it on > another 100Mb/s circuit we have... I despise it.) > Just kind of curious how they go about it. >

Re: Cogent IPv6

> Do they issue you a small IPv6 block for your interface, just like they do > for IPv4? Is it a separate session? Any things to be aware of before > pulling the trigger on it? (Other then them not having connectivity to Hi Nick, They issued a /112 for our interface with a separate BGP sessi

Re: Cogent IPv6

On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 09:51:21 -0400, Nick Olsen wrote: I'm sure someone here is doing IPv6 peering with cogent. We've got a Gig with them, So they don't do that dual peering thing with us. (They do it on another 100Mb/s circuit we have... I despise it.) Just kind of curious how they go about i

Re: Cogent IPv6

Nick, On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Nick Olsen wrote: > I'm sure someone here is doing IPv6 peering with cogent. (snip) > Any things to be aware of before > pulling the trigger on it? (Other then them not having connectivity to HE's > IPv6 side of things, Wish they would fix that already...) N

Re: Cogent IPv6

On 6/8/11 9:51 AM, Nick Olsen wrote: I'm sure someone here is doing IPv6 peering with cogent. We've got a Gig with them, So they don't do that dual peering thing with us. (They do it on another 100Mb/s circuit we have... I despise it.) Just kind of curious how they go about it. Do they issue you

Cogent IPv6

I'm sure someone here is doing IPv6 peering with cogent. We've got a Gig with them, So they don't do that dual peering thing with us. (They do it on another 100Mb/s circuit we have... I despise it.) Just kind of curious how they go about it. Do they issue you a small IPv6 block for your interface