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
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
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
> 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
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
> 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
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.
>> >>
>
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
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
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
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
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.
>
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
>
>>> 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
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
: 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
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
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
;
>
>> -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
>>
>>
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
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
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
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
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
> 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
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
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
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
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
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
> 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
> 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
- 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
* 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
> 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
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
> 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
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
> 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,
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 wishes to reach them. In
order to avoid significant
This doesn't surprise me. Cogent get's into Peering Chicken from time to
time. Just like Cogent and HE still have no IPv6 peering. *Insert picture
of cake here*.
Can also confirm I'm not learning AS15169 routes via Cogent v6.
Nick Olsen
Network Operations (855) FLSPEED x106
-
http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2016-February/084147.html
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest Internet Exchange
http://www.midwest-ix.com
- Original Message -
From: "Dennis Burgess"
To: "North American Network Operator
50 matches
Mail list logo
