Mailing List Archive

IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering
Hi,
I recently noticed that there seems a peering issue on the ipv6 internet.
As we all know hurricane is currently the largest ipv6 carrier. Other large
carriers are now implementing ipv6 on their networks, like Cogent and Telia.

However, due to some politics it seems that they are not peering with each
other resulting in a broken ipv6 internet currently. I noticed this by using
the looking glasses from telia and hurricane.

This is only a real problem if you use hurricane as the only transit.
However, hurricane also announces 6to4 relays. When you happen to use the
hurricane relay server (due to the shortest path), cogent and telia (and
maybe more) are not reachable.

I already asked hurricane about their point of view. They simply just ignore
it because they 'are the biggest one'.

I'm currious about you point of view.

regards, Igor Ybema
Senior network Administrator
Oxilion
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
On Oct 12, 2009, at 7:41 AM, Igor Ybema wrote:

> I recently noticed that there seems a peering issue on the ipv6
> internet.
> As we all know hurricane is currently the largest ipv6 carrier.
> Other large
> carriers are now implementing ipv6 on their networks, like Cogent
> and Telia.
>
> However, due to some politics it seems that they are not peering
> with each
> other resulting in a broken ipv6 internet currently. I noticed this
> by using
> the looking glasses from telia and hurricane.
>
> This is only a real problem if you use hurricane as the only transit.
> However, hurricane also announces 6to4 relays. When you happen to
> use the
> hurricane relay server (due to the shortest path), cogent and telia
> (and
> maybe more) are not reachable.
>
> I already asked hurricane about their point of view. They simply
> just ignore
> it because they 'are the biggest one'.

It is sad to see that networks which used to care about connectivity,
peering, latency, etc., when they are small change their mind when
they are "big". The most recent example is Cogent, an open peer who
decided to turn down peers when they reached transit free status.

I never thought HE would be one of those networks.

--
TTFN,
patrick
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
On Oct 12, 2009, at 6:09 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:

> It is sad to see that networks which used to care about
> connectivity, peering, latency, etc., when they are small change
> their mind when they are "big". The most recent example is Cogent,
> an open peer who decided to turn down peers when they reached
> transit free status.
>
> I never thought HE would be one of those networks.


Do we have any proof it's HE rejecting peering or is it that Cogent en
Telia alike that are to proud to ask and think they can have a piece
of the pie as they did with v4 ?

MarcoH
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
Igor Ybema wrote:
> Hi,
> I recently noticed that there seems a peering issue on the ipv6 internet.
> As we all know hurricane is currently the largest ipv6 carrier. Other large
> carriers are now implementing ipv6 on their networks, like Cogent and Telia.
>
> However, due to some politics it seems that they are not peering with each
> other resulting in a broken ipv6 internet currently. I noticed this by using
> the looking glasses from telia and hurricane.
>
> This is only a real problem if you use hurricane as the only transit.
> However, hurricane also announces 6to4 relays. When you happen to use the
> hurricane relay server (due to the shortest path), cogent and telia (and
> maybe more) are not reachable.
>
> I already asked hurricane about their point of view. They simply just ignore
> it because they 'are the biggest one'.
>
> I'm currious about you point of view.
>


Don't get me started on IPv6 crap... ;)

If you are interested, I don't want to spam the list with my Verizon
horror story, but you can read it here:
http://www.rollernet.us/wordpress/category/ipv6/

~Seth
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
Perhaps someone from HE can re-confirm their open peering policy for us?

If they aren't (open) anymore, I'm impressed by the bravado...

Deepak


----- Original Message -----
From: Marco Hogewoning <marcoh@marcoh.net>
To: Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Sent: Mon Oct 12 12:15:34 2009
Subject: Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering


On Oct 12, 2009, at 6:09 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:

> It is sad to see that networks which used to care about
> connectivity, peering, latency, etc., when they are small change
> their mind when they are "big". The most recent example is Cogent,
> an open peer who decided to turn down peers when they reached
> transit free status.
>
> I never thought HE would be one of those networks.


Do we have any proof it's HE rejecting peering or is it that Cogent en
Telia alike that are to proud to ask and think they can have a piece
of the pie as they did with v4 ?

MarcoH
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
On Oct 12, 2009, at 12:23 PM, Deepak Jain wrote:

> Perhaps someone from HE can re-confirm their open peering policy for
> us?
>
> If they aren't (open) anymore, I'm impressed by the bravado...

To be clear, I was not trying to imply that HE has a closed policy.
But I can see how people might think that given my Cogent example. My
apologies to HE.

And to be fair, I'm pounding on HE because they've always cared about
their customers. I expect Telia to care more about their own ego than
their customers' connectivity. So banging on them is nonproductive.


In summary: HE has worked tirelessly and mostly thanklessly to promote
v6. They have done more to bring v6 to the forefront than any other
network. But at the end of day, despite HE's valiant effort on v6, v6
has all the problems of v4 on the backbone, PLUS growing pains. Which
means it is difficult to rely on it, as v4 has enough dangers on its
own.

Anyway, I have confidence HE is trying to fix this. But I still think
the fact that it happened - whatever the reason - is a black eye for
the v6 "Internet", whatever the hell that is.

--
TTFN,
patrick


> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Marco Hogewoning <marcoh@marcoh.net>
> To: Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net>
> Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
> Sent: Mon Oct 12 12:15:34 2009
> Subject: Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering
>
>
> On Oct 12, 2009, at 6:09 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>
>> It is sad to see that networks which used to care about
>> connectivity, peering, latency, etc., when they are small change
>> their mind when they are "big". The most recent example is Cogent,
>> an open peer who decided to turn down peers when they reached
>> transit free status.
>>
>> I never thought HE would be one of those networks.
>
>
> Do we have any proof it's HE rejecting peering or is it that Cogent en
> Telia alike that are to proud to ask and think they can have a piece
> of the pie as they did with v4 ?
>
> MarcoH
>
>
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
sure would be nice if there was a diagnosis before the lynching
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
Just saw that telia <-> HE AND telia <-> Cogent got fixed. They are now
connected through C&W. Maybe someone got woken up by these messages :)

Cogent and HE is still broken but then again, ipv6@cogent is still beta.

regards, Igor
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
On Oct 12, 2009, at 12:52 PM, Randy Bush wrote:

> sure would be nice if there was a diagnosis before the lynching

If this happened in v4, would customers care 'why' it happened?
Obviously not.

Why should v6 be any different? It either is or is not production
ready. I'm interested in HE's view on that.

--
TTFN,
patrick
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
On October 12, 2009, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> In summary: HE has worked tirelessly and mostly thanklessly to promote
> v6. They have done more to bring v6 to the forefront than any other
> network. But at the end of day, despite HE's valiant effort on v6, v6
> has all the problems of v4 on the backbone, PLUS growing pains. Which
> means it is difficult to rely on it, as v4 has enough dangers on its
> own.
>

And don't forget.. Once IPv6 gets to the mainstream.. IP Reputation lists are
going to have a real fun time :) Spammers would love to see IPv6 in place I am
sure. ;) Routing IPv6 is going to require one heck of a thinking re-
adjustment. Would be nice to just leave IPv6 in the premises, and keep IPv4
for routing.

--
--
"Catch the Magic of Linux..."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Peddemors - President/CEO - LinuxMagic
Products, Services, Support and Development
Visit us at http://www.linuxmagic.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Wizard IT Company - For More Info http://www.wizard.ca
"LinuxMagic" is a Registered TradeMark of Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
604-589-0037 Beautiful British Columbia, Canada

This email and any electronic data contained are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed.
Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely
those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company.
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 07:06:37PM +0200, Igor Ybema wrote:
> Just saw that telia <-> HE AND telia <-> Cogent got fixed. They are now
> connected through C&W. Maybe someone got woken up by these messages :)
>
> Cogent and HE is still broken but then again, ipv6@cogent is still beta.

Cogent has never carried a full IPv6 table, and probably never will (or
at least, not for a REALLY long time). They aren't using any IPv6
transit, and will only turn up peering with a handful of large networks
as measured by their IPv4 peering stats. This isn't even close to
representative of the IPv6 routing table, so they're probably going to
continue to miss huge chunks of IPv6 for many years to come.

--
Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> On Oct 12, 2009, at 12:52 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>
>> sure would be nice if there was a diagnosis before the lynching
>
> If this happened in v4, would customers care 'why' it happened?
> Obviously not.

I suspect more NAT will become a better solution than migrating to IPv6
if/when runout becomes a problem because there's just not enough
visibility or providers that take it seriously enough for IPv6 to be a
viable solution. I try to do my part but it's a horrible pain.


> Why should v6 be any different? It either is or is not production
> ready. I'm interested in HE's view on that.
>

As far as HE goes, they're so pro-IPv6 I would be surprised if anything
intentionally bad was going on. I wish more providers had their attitude
towards IPv6.

~Seth
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 10:47 -0700, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> > On Oct 12, 2009, at 12:52 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> >
> >> sure would be nice if there was a diagnosis before the lynching
> >
> > If this happened in v4, would customers care 'why' it happened?
> > Obviously not.
>
> I suspect more NAT will become a better solution than migrating to IPv6
> if/when runout becomes a problem because there's just not enough
> visibility or providers that take it seriously enough for IPv6 to be a
> viable solution. I try to do my part but it's a horrible pain.
>

And then you have the hoards of DSLreports people screaming about how
they do not have a routeable IP address anymore, which is bad for
business, and then IPv6 comes about because the people *demand* it.
(although they do not necessarily know they are demanding that -- what
they are demanding is the ability to continue having publically
routeable IP addresses for their broadband connection.)

William
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
Michael Peddemors wrote:
> On October 12, 2009, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>> In summary: HE has worked tirelessly and mostly thanklessly to promote
>> v6. They have done more to bring v6 to the forefront than any other
>> network. But at the end of day, despite HE's valiant effort on v6, v6
>> has all the problems of v4 on the backbone, PLUS growing pains. Which
>> means it is difficult to rely on it, as v4 has enough dangers on its
>> own.
>>
>
> And don't forget.. Once IPv6 gets to the mainstream.. IP Reputation lists are
> going to have a real fun time :) Spammers would love to see IPv6 in place I am
> sure.

You seem to have concluded that blacklisting a prefix is much harder in
ipv6 than it is in v4...

> ;) Routing IPv6 is going to require one heck of a thinking re-
> adjustment. Would be nice to just leave IPv6 in the premises, and keep IPv4
> for routing.
>
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
On 12/10/09 10:25 -0700, Michael Peddemors wrote:
>On October 12, 2009, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>> In summary: HE has worked tirelessly and mostly thanklessly to promote
>> v6. They have done more to bring v6 to the forefront than any other
>> network. But at the end of day, despite HE's valiant effort on v6, v6
>> has all the problems of v4 on the backbone, PLUS growing pains. Which
>> means it is difficult to rely on it, as v4 has enough dangers on its
>> own.
>>
>
>And don't forget.. Once IPv6 gets to the mainstream.. IP Reputation lists are
>going to have a real fun time :) Spammers would love to see IPv6 in place I am
>sure. ;) Routing IPv6 is going to require one heck of a thinking re-
>adjustment. Would be nice to just leave IPv6 in the premises, and keep IPv4
>for routing.

Reputation lists will just be on the /64, /56 and /48 boundaries, rather
than IPv4 /32.

--
Dan White
BTC Broadband
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
Dan White wrote:
> Reputation lists will just be on the /64, /56 and /48 boundaries, rather
> than IPv4 /32.

And then people will scream because someone setup a layout that hands
out /128 addresses within a /64 pool.

Jack
Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy [ In reply to ]
Seth Mattinen wrote:

> If you are interested, I don't want to spam the list with my Verizon
> horror story, but you can read it here:
> http://www.rollernet.us/wordpress/category/ipv6/

At the risk of sounding like I'm piling on, I'm in the same basically
the same boat that Seth is, except that I do know who my account rep is
and have been in touch with him.

Verizon's policy has been related to me that they will not accept or
propogate any IPv6 route advertisements with prefix lengths longer than
/32. Full stop. So that even includes those of us that have /48 PI
space from ARIN that are direct customers of Verizon.

I've been told that Verizon is discussing this policy and whether it
should be updated, but until they update their policy to be in line with
the IPv6 Internet allocation/assignment policies from at least September
of 2006 (when ARIN assigned their first /48 from 2620:0::/23), if your
announcements are only longer than /32, you should be aware that Verizon
is completely unreachable for you - even if you are a Verizon customer
directly.

--
Jeff McAdams
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
Igor Ybema wrote:
> I recently noticed that there seems a peering issue on the ipv6 internet.
> As we all know hurricane is currently the largest ipv6 carrier. Other large
> carriers are now implementing ipv6 on their networks, like Cogent and Telia.
>
> However, due to some politics it seems that they are not peering with each
> other resulting in a broken ipv6 internet currently. I noticed this by using
> the looking glasses from telia and hurricane.

I'll spell it out for your entertainment.

Hurricane aggressively tries to solve connectivity problems, IPv4 or IPv6.

In the case of Cogent, they hilariously are trying to reduce peering
with Hurricane over time.

Hurricane has IPv4 peering with Cogent. Years ago this was at four
locations in the world, then this was at three locations in the world,
then two locations in the world. Why? Because over time when a BGP
session would go down for longer than 30 seconds, Cogent permanently
shut the session. Both Cogent and Hurricane have progressively lowered
the local preference and otherwise filtered the routes we receive from
each other to prevent the connections from saturating due to the size of
our networks and the number of prefixes we each announce.

These connections were a combination of OC12s in the US and public
peering in Europe. Hurricane repeatedly over the years has pushed to
replace the OC12s with atleast giges (if not 10GE), on the principle it
would be cheaper, conform to more of the hardware each of us uses, allow
us to remove legacy OC12 cards from the network, etc. Cogent hasn't.

Why?

Because even though they are content heavy and due to the routing tables
one might infer they don't have settlement free peering with all
networks, they don't want to help Hurricane in any way.

Ok, fine. Not everybody choses to operate their network this way,
usually most are more concerned about their customers, however hey who
am I to say whatever they view as their core mission isn't being met.

If you've been around long enough, you'd know that normally nobody talks
about peering publicly like this. Most of the core network operators
here could just infer what I told you above.

Then why would I write this post?

Because I want to set the record straight regarding Hurricane Electric's
IPv6 peering goals, and nothing in Cogent's case seems to get through to
them.

Oh, BTW, let me describe the special case of irony. If Cogent wanted to
ensure they weren't in a subservient role in IPv6 as they are for IPv4
(and I'm not talking about Hurricane, I'm talking about all the networks
they've ever had to pay or fight in one way or another), then they would
be working to have a complete IPv6 table by working with a player like
Hurricane which reduces their dependency on networks that will be
difficult with them, that is: be cooperative with them rather than give
them a huge amount of crap and try to torture them at each turn (i.e. in
order to get "peering" you need to buy these local loops, etc etc etc).

BTW, regarding the comments about 6to4, with Hurricane Electric you will
reach more of the IPv6 Internet, with lower latency than anybody else.

> I already asked hurricane about their point of view. They simply just ignore
> it because they 'are the biggest one'.

We don't ignore comments about connectivity, in fact quite the opposite.
We study each AS and which ASes are behind them. We work on getting
peering with the specific AS, in the case that they are unresponsive,
getting the ASes behind them.

Among the things we do to discuss peering: send email to any relevant
contacts, call them, contact them on IRC, send people to the relevant
conferences to seek them out specifically, send people to their offices,
etc.

So far we stop short of baking cakes, but hey...

Our goal is to provide as much connectivity to as many people as possible.

That might be our goal, however, not everybody's goal on the Internet is
to provide as much connectivity as possible for their customers.

Mike.
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
On October 12, 2009, Dan White wrote:
> Reputation lists will just be on the /64, /56 and /48 boundaries, rather
> than IPv4 /32.
>

IF Network Operators started advertising and routing /64 addresses, and
assuming there were email servers our there running MX records on IPv6,

http://eng.genius.com/blog/2009/09/14/email-on-ipv6/

for the spammers to send too, they would quickly adopt the idea of large
blocks of IPv6 Addresses. If you had to apply reputation to them
individually, it would make a much larger dataset to maintain.

If you look at for instance the number of IP's on RATS-DYNA and RATS-NOPTR,
(examples of IP's typically representative of DUL's) they have 65 Million IP's
in the database at /32 IPv4, just think what the numbers would be with IPv6.

Spammers could in theory be using a much larger set of routable IP's to send
from. Once NAT is out, it opens a huge can of worms to detect and maintain
the size of databases that would be needed to reflect this new space.

With 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 compared to 4,294,967,296 anyone who is trying
to build an effecient way to gather and store reputation, has their work cut
out for them.

Currently, maintaining the reputation of the IPv4 space is feasible, however
once we reach IPv6 numbers, it would almost require a model of registering
IP's for certain uses.

We have enough trouble getting current providers to even have whois delgation,
of who is using what part of their IPv4 spaces, I don't expect it to get any
easier with IPv6. Imagine the size of ACL lists?


--
--
"Catch the Magic of Linux..."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Peddemors - President/CEO - LinuxMagic
Products, Services, Support and Development
Visit us at http://www.linuxmagic.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Wizard IT Company - For More Info http://www.wizard.ca
"LinuxMagic" is a Registered TradeMark of Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
604-589-0037 Beautiful British Columbia, Canada

This email and any electronic data contained are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed.
Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely
those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company.
RE: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
No need for me to repeat what Mike has posted. I agree 100% with him on all
fronts. Mike and his team have gone out of their way to promote and support
IPv6 from the very beginning and I think everyone knows this. In the past,
I had some differences with Mike over legacy policies that Hurricane adopted
initially, but after spending time with him and explaining those issues, he
did everything in his power to correct them. I'd even say he went above and
beyond everyone's expectations.

I hope this issue gets resolved quickly. I've seen first hand the political
issues in v4 and I really hope we don't have a repeat of this in v6. There
are a handful of providers that have turned to a restrictive IPv6 policy (or
"must be existing peer in v4 to peer in v6 with us") and I find it
outrageous at this point in time.

Cogent, get with the program.

Regards,

Randy
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
Randy Epstein wrote:
> No need for me to repeat what Mike has posted. I agree 100% with him on all
> fronts. Mike and his team have gone out of their way to promote and support
> IPv6 from the very beginning and I think everyone knows this. In the past,
> I had some differences with Mike over legacy policies that Hurricane adopted
> initially, but after spending time with him and explaining those issues, he
> did everything in his power to correct them. I'd even say he went above and
> beyond everyone's expectations.
>
> I hope this issue gets resolved quickly. I've seen first hand the political
> issues in v4 and I really hope we don't have a repeat of this in v6. There
> are a handful of providers that have turned to a restrictive IPv6 policy (or
> "must be existing peer in v4 to peer in v6 with us") and I find it
> outrageous at this point in time.
>
> Cogent, get with the program.
>
> Regards,
>
> Randy
>
>
>

Cogent: You are absolutely insane. You are doing nothing but
alienating your customers and doing a disservice to IPv6 and the
internet as a whole.

You are publishing AAAA records for www.cogentco.com, which means that I
CANNOT reach it to even look at your looking glass. I send my prefixes
to 4436, 22822, and 6939 and you are not peering with any of them. Why
not peer, for FREE, with 6939? What could you possibly gain from NOT
doing this? HE is NOT going to buy transit from you (nor am I). Please
fix your policy.

-Dave
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Randy Epstein <repstein@chello.at> wrote:

> No need for me to repeat what Mike has posted. I agree 100% with him on
> all
> fronts. Mike and his team have gone out of their way to promote and
> support
> IPv6 from the very beginning and I think everyone knows this. In the past,
> I had some differences with Mike over legacy policies that Hurricane
> adopted
> initially, but after spending time with him and explaining those issues, he
> did everything in his power to correct them. I'd even say he went above
> and
> beyond everyone's expectations.
>
> I hope this issue gets resolved quickly. I've seen first hand the
> political
> issues in v4 and I really hope we don't have a repeat of this in v6. There
> are a handful of providers that have turned to a restrictive IPv6 policy
> (or
> "must be existing peer in v4 to peer in v6 with us") and I find it
> outrageous at this point in time.
>
> Cogent, get with the program.
>

*shrug* If Cogent wants to isolate itself from the rest of the Internet,
it's kinda their problem, right? I mean, it's their network, if they don't
want to play with the rest of us, they don't have to. They just won't
have much to offer their customers if they decide not to play along.

There's no mandate about universal connectivity; when you buy service
from a provider, you select which provider to buy from based on the
breadth and scope of services you desire. There may be a huge
customer base for Cogent that fears the rest of the IPv6 Internet,
and doesn't want to connect to it. If there's enough of a revenue
stream from them to keep Cogent afloat, more power to them, I
applaud them for discovering an alternative business model.

I, for one, don't particularly believe in the utility of such a service,
and wouldn't pay for it, but that doesn't mean there aren't a lot
of frightened, paranoid people who really do want to play in a
sheltered walled garden, kept apart from everyone else--and if
Cogent can make a business out of servicing them, more power
to them. I just wouldn't put my salary on the line banking on that
business model panning out.*


> Regards,
>
> Randy
>


Matt

*note, however, that I also opted to stay in college in 1991, rather than
join Cisco because I felt they did not have a workable business model;
in 1995, I rejected Mosaic Communications, because the idea of trying
to compete with a freely downloadable browser seemed like business
suicide; and I rejected Google's offer letter in early 2000, because it
was clear that trying to compete with altavista by trying to support a
company off revenues from search advertising was completely ludicrous.
Given that track record, some may take my scathing indictment of
Cogent's walled garden approach to IPv6 as a clear indicator of future
earnings potential. :/
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
> Cogent: You are absolutely insane. You are doing nothing but
> alienating your customers and doing a disservice to IPv6 and the
> internet as a whole.
>
> You are publishing AAAA records for www.cogentco.com, which means
> that I CANNOT reach it to even look at your looking glass. I send
> my prefixes to 4436, 22822, and 6939 and you are not peering with
> any of them. Why not peer, for FREE, with 6939? What could you
> possibly gain from NOT doing this? HE is NOT going to buy transit
> from you (nor am I). Please fix your policy.


May I suggest to vote with your feet and take your business somewhere
else. They obviously are not interested in you, your traffic or your
money.

MarcoH
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
Marco Hogewoning wrote:
>> Cogent: You are absolutely insane. You are doing nothing but
>> alienating your customers and doing a disservice to IPv6 and the
>> internet as a whole.
>>
>> You are publishing AAAA records for www.cogentco.com, which means
>> that I CANNOT reach it to even look at your looking glass. I send my
>> prefixes to 4436, 22822, and 6939 and you are not peering with any of
>> them. Why not peer, for FREE, with 6939? What could you possibly
>> gain from NOT doing this? HE is NOT going to buy transit from you
>> (nor am I). Please fix your policy.
>
>
> May I suggest to vote with your feet and take your business somewhere
> else. They obviously are not interested in you, your traffic or your
> money.
>
> MarcoH
>
Already done. All they are doing is continuing to provide fodder for
engineers to tell their bosses why to NOT consider 174 transit when it's
brought up.

-Dave
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
> Matt
>
> *note, however, that I also opted to stay in college in 1991, rather than
> join Cisco because I felt they did not have a workable business model;
> in 1995, I rejected Mosaic Communications, because the idea of trying
> to compete with a freely downloadable browser seemed like business
> suicide; and I rejected Google's offer letter in early 2000, because it
> was clear that trying to compete with altavista by trying to support a
> company off revenues from search advertising was completely ludicrous.
> Given that track record, some may take my scathing indictment of
> Cogent's walled garden approach to IPv6 as a clear indicator of future
> earnings potential. :/

*rofl*


*cries*

That was good!
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
>> sure would be nice if there was a diagnosis before the lynching
> If this happened in v4, would customers care 'why' it happened?
> Obviously not.
> Why should v6 be any different? It either is or is not production
> ready. I'm interested in HE's view on that.

many of us are interested in diagnosis. few in your lynch rope.

randy
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
Funny enough, we've been looking at moving from 174 to HE for a large
amount of traffic, and this discussion is making the decision *a lot*
easier.

On 10/12/09, Dave Temkin <davet1@gmail.com> wrote:
> Marco Hogewoning wrote:
>>> Cogent: You are absolutely insane. You are doing nothing but
>>> alienating your customers and doing a disservice to IPv6 and the
>>> internet as a whole.
>>>
>>> You are publishing AAAA records for www.cogentco.com, which means
>>> that I CANNOT reach it to even look at your looking glass. I send my
>>> prefixes to 4436, 22822, and 6939 and you are not peering with any of
>>> them. Why not peer, for FREE, with 6939? What could you possibly
>>> gain from NOT doing this? HE is NOT going to buy transit from you
>>> (nor am I). Please fix your policy.
>>
>>
>> May I suggest to vote with your feet and take your business somewhere
>> else. They obviously are not interested in you, your traffic or your
>> money.
>>
>> MarcoH
>>
> Already done. All they are doing is continuing to provide fodder for
> engineers to tell their bosses why to NOT consider 174 transit when it's
> brought up.
>
> -Dave
>
>


--
Brandon Galbraith
Mobile: 630.400.6992
FNAL: 630.840.2141
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
Randy Bush wrote:
>>> sure would be nice if there was a diagnosis before the lynching
>> If this happened in v4, would customers care 'why' it happened?
>> Obviously not.
>> Why should v6 be any different? It either is or is not production
>> ready. I'm interested in HE's view on that.
>
> many of us are interested in diagnosis. few in your lynch rope.

What Randy has been *hinting* at is largely relevant...

I'm a /32 holder, with clients that have /48. I would appreciate some of
the diagnostic paperwork that has been written...

Steve

ps. I'm not choosing sides in any way, nor do I want to start a flame,
but HE has been exceptionally helpful v6-wise since I got into the game.
Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy [ In reply to ]
In message <4AD382E4.9010901@iglou.com>, Jeff McAdams writes:
> Seth Mattinen wrote:
>
> > If you are interested, I don't want to spam the list with my Verizon
> > horror story, but you can read it here:
> > http://www.rollernet.us/wordpress/category/ipv6/
>
> At the risk of sounding like I'm piling on, I'm in the same basically
> the same boat that Seth is, except that I do know who my account rep is
> and have been in touch with him.
>
> Verizon's policy has been related to me that they will not accept or
> propogate any IPv6 route advertisements with prefix lengths longer than
> /32. Full stop. So that even includes those of us that have /48 PI
> space from ARIN that are direct customers of Verizon.

Looks like Verizon doesn't want any IPv6 customers. If a company
has idiotic policies like this vote with your wallet.

> I've been told that Verizon is discussing this policy and whether it
> should be updated, but until they update their policy to be in line with
> the IPv6 Internet allocation/assignment policies from at least September
> of 2006 (when ARIN assigned their first /48 from 2620:0::/23), if your
> announcements are only longer than /32, you should be aware that Verizon
> is completely unreachable for you - even if you are a Verizon customer
> directly.
>
> --
> Jeff McAdams
>
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy [ In reply to ]
On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 09:40 +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:

> > Verizon's policy has been related to me that they will not accept
> or
> > propogate any IPv6 route advertisements with prefix lengths longer
> than
> > /32. Full stop. So that even includes those of us that have /48
> PI
> > space from ARIN that are direct customers of Verizon.
>
> Looks like Verizon doesn't want any IPv6 customers. If a company
> has idiotic policies like this vote with your wallet.


Unfortunately, not everyone always has that choice.
Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy [ In reply to ]
In message <1255388942.12984.1.camel@acer-laptop>, Bret Clark writes:
> On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 09:40 +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > > Verizon's policy has been related to me that they will not accept
> > or
> > > propogate any IPv6 route advertisements with prefix lengths longer
> > than
> > > /32. Full stop. So that even includes those of us that have /48
> > PI
> > > space from ARIN that are direct customers of Verizon.
> >
> > Looks like Verizon doesn't want any IPv6 customers. If a company
> > has idiotic policies like this vote with your wallet.
>
> Unfortunately, not everyone always has that choice.

If there isn't as choice then regulation is required.

Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy [ In reply to ]
Mark Andrews wrote:
> In message <4AD382E4.9010901@iglou.com>, Jeff McAdams writes:
>> Seth Mattinen wrote:
>>
>>> If you are interested, I don't want to spam the list with my Verizon
>>> horror story, but you can read it here:
>>> http://www.rollernet.us/wordpress/category/ipv6/
>> At the risk of sounding like I'm piling on, I'm in the same basically
>> the same boat that Seth is, except that I do know who my account rep is
>> and have been in touch with him.
>>
>> Verizon's policy has been related to me that they will not accept or
>> propogate any IPv6 route advertisements with prefix lengths longer than
>> /32. Full stop. So that even includes those of us that have /48 PI
>> space from ARIN that are direct customers of Verizon.
>
> Looks like Verizon doesn't want any IPv6 customers. If a company
> has idiotic policies like this vote with your wallet.
>

I am, sort of; I'm a new customer so they installed, but I haven't
accepted it yet. Unfortunately I won't be able to get back to dealing
with it until late next week at the earliest as I'm in the middle of
moving to a new facility.

~Seth
Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy [ In reply to ]
Mark,

On Oct 12, 2009, at 3:40 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>> Verizon's policy has been related to me that they will not accept or
>> propogate any IPv6 route advertisements with prefix lengths longer than
>> /32. Full stop. So that even includes those of us that have /48 PI
>> space from ARIN that are direct customers of Verizon.
>
> Looks like Verizon doesn't want any IPv6 customers. If a company
> has idiotic policies like this vote with your wallet.

Not knowing all the details, it is difficult for me to judge, however it is worth observing that provider independent addresses, regardless of where they come from or whether they are IPv4 or IPv6 simply do not scale. In the face of everybody and their mother now being able to obtain PI prefixes from all the RIRs, any ISP that handles full routing is going to have to hope their router vendor of choice can keep buying more/bigger CAMs (passing the expense on to the ISP who will pass it on to their customers) and/or they'll start implementing the same sort of prefix length limitations that we saw back in the mid-90s.

And, of course, we have IPv4 runout in the near future with the inevitable market which will almost certainly promote the use of longer prefixes.

In other words, get used to it.

Regards,
-drc
Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy [ In reply to ]
On 13/10/2009, at 8:26, Jeff McAdams <jeffm@iglou.com> wrote:

> Verizon's policy has been related to me that they will not accept or
> propogate any IPv6 route advertisements with prefix lengths longer
> than /32. Full stop. So that even includes those of us that have /
> 48 PI space from ARIN that are direct customers of Verizon.

What about the small matter of all of the current AAAAs for the the
IPv6 enabled root DNS servers?

--
Nathan Ward
Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy [ In reply to ]
On Oct 12, 2009, at 4:37 PM, David Conrad wrote:

> Mark,
>
> On Oct 12, 2009, at 3:40 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>>> Verizon's policy has been related to me that they will not accept or
>>> propogate any IPv6 route advertisements with prefix lengths longer
>>> than
>>> /32. Full stop. So that even includes those of us that have /48 PI
>>> space from ARIN that are direct customers of Verizon.
>>
>> Looks like Verizon doesn't want any IPv6 customers. If a company
>> has idiotic policies like this vote with your wallet.
>
> Not knowing all the details, it is difficult for me to judge,
> however it is worth observing that provider independent addresses,
> regardless of where they come from or whether they are IPv4 or IPv6
> simply do not scale. In the face of everybody and their mother now
> being able to obtain PI prefixes from all the RIRs, any ISP that
> handles full routing is going to have to hope their router vendor of
> choice can keep buying more/bigger CAMs (passing the expense on to
> the ISP who will pass it on to their customers) and/or they'll start
> implementing the same sort of prefix length limitations that we saw
> back in the mid-90s.
>
I disagree. With IPv4 the bigger issue is that everyone and their mom
has 9 different announcements behind their single ASN.

With IPv6, it probably won't be the ideal 1:1 ratio, but, it will come
much closer. Even if the average drops to 1/2, you're
talking about a 70,000 route table today, and, likely growth in the
250-300,000 route range over the next 5-10 years.
CAM will probably scale faster than that.

The problematic time scale is that time where we have to support dual
stack for a majority of the network. That's what will
really stress the CAM as the IPv6 table becomes meaningfully large
(but not huge) and the IPv4 table cannot yet be
retired.

> And, of course, we have IPv4 runout in the near future with the
> inevitable market which will almost certainly promote the use of
> longer prefixes.
>
There is that problem, too. Personally, I think the market was a
horrible idea, but, it had way too much momentum for
me to be able to stop it.

> In other words, get used to it.
>
Pretty much. I think eventually, we're going to have to look at
moving to an ID/Locator split method
in the IDR realm.

Owen
Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy [ In reply to ]
From where I sit, it looks like:

a.root-servers.net has IPv6 address 2001:503:ba3e::2:30
BGP routing table entry for 2001:503:ba3e::/48

f.root-servers.net has IPv6 address 2001:500:2f::f
BGP routing table entry for 2001:500:2f::/48

h.root-servers.net has IPv6 address 2001:500:1::803f:235
BGP routing table entry for 2001:500:1::/48

j.root-servers.net has IPv6 address 2001:503:c27::2:30
BGP routing table entry for 2001:503:c27::/48

k.root-servers.net has IPv6 address 2001:7fd::1
BGP routing table entry for 2001:7fd::/32

l.root-servers.net has IPv6 address 2001:500:3::42
BGP routing table entry for 2001:500:3::/48

m.root-servers.net has IPv6 address 2001:dc3::35
BGP routing table entry for 2001:dc3::/32


b.root-servers.net has no AAAA record
c.root-servers.net has no AAAA record
d.root-servers.net has no AAAA record
e.root-servers.net has no AAAA record
g.root-servers.net has no AAAA record
i.root-servers.net has no AAAA record


So... Likely, Verizon customers can reach k and m root servers via IPv6
and not the others.

The fact that b, c, d, e, g, and i do not have AAAA records actually
concerns me
more than the fact that Verizon customers can only reach two.

Owen

On Oct 12, 2009, at 4:39 PM, Nathan Ward wrote:

> On 13/10/2009, at 8:26, Jeff McAdams <jeffm@iglou.com> wrote:
>
>> Verizon's policy has been related to me that they will not accept
>> or propogate any IPv6 route advertisements with prefix lengths
>> longer than /32. Full stop. So that even includes those of us
>> that have /48 PI space from ARIN that are direct customers of
>> Verizon.
>
> What about the small matter of all of the current AAAAs for the the
> IPv6 enabled root DNS servers?
>
> --
> Nathan Ward
Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy [ In reply to ]
Owen,

On Oct 12, 2009, at 5:09 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> With IPv6, it probably won't be the ideal 1:1 ratio, but, it will come much closer.

I wasn't aware people would be doing traffic engineering differently in IPv6 than in IPv4.

> Even if the average drops to 1/2, you're talking about a 70,000 route table today,

How big are IPv6 objects in CAMs again?

> and, likely growth in the 250-300,000 route range over the next 5-10 years.
> CAM will probably scale faster than that.

I've heard differing opinions on this (e.g., router ASICs being both some of the most complicated ASICs ever made and being non-commodity parts hence not necessarily following Moore's Law, pin density in those ASICs reaching a point where you start running into crosstalk problems, cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria, etc). I'm not a hardware guy so I'll just stare blankly.

> The problematic time scale is that time where we have to support dual stack for a majority of the network. That's what will
> really stress the CAM as the IPv6 table becomes meaningfully large (but not huge) and the IPv4 table cannot yet be
> retired.

Right. And when are we planning on retiring IPv4 again?

Interestingly, if you're an ISP and you don't want to redeploy your insanely expensive high end routers with the huge CAMs, you might look to see which prefixes you could drop that would cause the least impact to the majority of your customers. In this light, filtering the crap out of IPv6 would appear to make business sense.

> I think eventually, we're going to have to look at moving to an ID/Locator split method in the IDR realm.


The big challenge with this is backwards compatibility...

Regards,
-drc
Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy [ In reply to ]
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 8:16 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
> From where I sit, it looks like:
..snip..
> So... Likely, Verizon customers can reach k and m root servers via IPv6
> and not the others.

or.. vzb (is now dead, it's all vz) has holes in filters to permit
prefixes of certain lengths or certain prefixes exactly. I believe
since I can reach k-root from my uu-connected + uu-v6'd device that'd
be the case.

-chris
Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy [ In reply to ]
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 8:40 PM, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> wrote:
> On Oct 12, 2009, at 5:09 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> and, likely growth in the 250-300,000 route range over the next 5-10 years.
>> CAM will probably scale faster than that.
>
> I've heard differing opinions on this (e.g., router ASICs being both some of the most complicated
> ASICs ever made and being non-commodity parts hence not necessarily following Moore's Law,
> pin density in those ASICs reaching a point where you start running into crosstalk problems,
> cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria, etc).  I'm not a hardware guy so I'll just stare
> blankly.

I thought Tony's preso from RAWS was available or part of the report,
no? (which seemed pretty clear to me about cam sizes and asic
capabilities not going to meet the needs within the next 5-7 years)

-chris
Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy [ In reply to ]
Owen DeLong wrote:
> From where I sit, it looks like:
>
> a.root-servers.net has IPv6 address 2001:503:ba3e::2:30
> BGP routing table entry for 2001:503:ba3e::/48
>
> f.root-servers.net has IPv6 address 2001:500:2f::f
> BGP routing table entry for 2001:500:2f::/48
>
> h.root-servers.net has IPv6 address 2001:500:1::803f:235
> BGP routing table entry for 2001:500:1::/48
>
> j.root-servers.net has IPv6 address 2001:503:c27::2:30
> BGP routing table entry for 2001:503:c27::/48
>
> k.root-servers.net has IPv6 address 2001:7fd::1
> BGP routing table entry for 2001:7fd::/32
>
> l.root-servers.net has IPv6 address 2001:500:3::42
> BGP routing table entry for 2001:500:3::/48
>
> m.root-servers.net has IPv6 address 2001:dc3::35
> BGP routing table entry for 2001:dc3::/32
>
>
> b.root-servers.net has no AAAA record
> c.root-servers.net has no AAAA record
> d.root-servers.net has no AAAA record
> e.root-servers.net has no AAAA record
> g.root-servers.net has no AAAA record
> i.root-servers.net has no AAAA record
>
>
> So... Likely, Verizon customers can reach k and m root servers via IPv6
> and not the others.
>

I can see the /48's out of 2001 in Verizon's table.

~Seth
Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy [ In reply to ]
Owen DeLong wrote:
> From where I sit, it looks like:
>
> a.root-servers.net has IPv6 address 2001:503:ba3e::2:30
> BGP routing table entry for 2001:503:ba3e::/48
>
> f.root-servers.net has IPv6 address 2001:500:2f::f
> BGP routing table entry for 2001:500:2f::/48
>
> h.root-servers.net has IPv6 address 2001:500:1::803f:235
> BGP routing table entry for 2001:500:1::/48
>
> j.root-servers.net has IPv6 address 2001:503:c27::2:30
> BGP routing table entry for 2001:503:c27::/48
>
> k.root-servers.net has IPv6 address 2001:7fd::1
> BGP routing table entry for 2001:7fd::/32
>
> l.root-servers.net has IPv6 address 2001:500:3::42
> BGP routing table entry for 2001:500:3::/48
>
> m.root-servers.net has IPv6 address 2001:dc3::35
> BGP routing table entry for 2001:dc3::/32

> So... Likely, Verizon customers can reach k and m root servers via IPv6
> and not the others.

I can see all of those through Verizon, so I'm not sure of how their
policy applies, or if they're making an exception for these, but they
are visible through Verizon.

--
Jeff McAdams
jeffm@iglou.com
Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy [ In reply to ]
David Conrad wrote:
> On Oct 12, 2009, at 3:40 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>>> Verizon's policy has been related to me that they will not accept
>>> or propogate any IPv6 route advertisements with prefix lengths
>>> longer than /32. Full stop. So that even includes those of us
>>> that have /48 PI space from ARIN that are direct customers of
>>> Verizon.

>> Looks like Verizon doesn't want any IPv6 customers. If a company
>> has idiotic policies like this vote with your wallet.

> Not knowing all the details, it is difficult for me to judge, however
> it is worth observing that provider independent addresses, regardless
> of where they come from or whether they are IPv4 or IPv6 simply do
> not scale. In the face of everybody and their mother now being able
> to obtain PI prefixes from all the RIRs, any ISP that handles full
> routing is going to have to hope their router vendor of choice can
> keep buying more/bigger CAMs (passing the expense on to the ISP who
> will pass it on to their customers) and/or they'll start implementing
> the same sort of prefix length limitations that we saw back in the
> mid-90s.

> And, of course, we have IPv4 runout in the near future with the
> inevitable market which will almost certainly promote the use of
> longer prefixes.

And I look at the other side of it. For us "mere" end-user organization
(ie, not big backbone ISPs who have dominated the discussion for so
long), IPv6 without PI is an utter and complete non-starter.

Despite how huge of a proponent of IPv6 deployment that I am, until PI
space was available, I didn't start the work, because without PI space,
its utter foolishness for a company that depends on their Internet
access to move forward. I don't think its a coincidence that we've seen
a big uptick in deployment of IPv6 since PI space became available.
Telling end-user organizations to get a block from each upstream and
multihome by putting an address from each upstream on every system is
now and always has been a bad joke.

> In other words, get used to it.

In other words, figure it out. Either we'll have PI space in IPv6, or
IPv4 is going to get *crazy* fragmented as continually smaller blocks
are bought and sold.

If you want to keep your cam tables from blowing up, I truly think the
way forward is to get people to IPv6 as quickly as possible, where they
can get blocks big enough to put all of their address space in 1 or 2
blocks, rather than the 4, 7 or more, blocks that they're currently
using for IPv4.

And, no, not everyone deaggregates for TE purposes. No network that
I've ever been in charge of has ever advertised anything but the most
aggregated blocks that we could given the allocations/assignments we
had. We'll have savings from that, and if you want to filter to limit
deaggregating for TE purposes, I'm quite OK with that.

But if you cut out PI space, you're dead in the water, we just can't
have that.

--
Jeff McAdams
Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy [ In reply to ]
In a message written on Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 05:09:41PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> With IPv6, it probably won't be the ideal 1:1 ratio, but, it will come
> much closer. Even if the average drops to 1/2, you're
> talking about a 70,000 route table today, and, likely growth in the
> 250-300,000 route range over the next 5-10 years.
> CAM will probably scale faster than that.

Here's a presentation from 2007.

http://www.vaf.net/~vaf/apricot-plenary.pdf

On page 13, you'll find a table. It starts with numbers in November
of 2006, and makes projections. The 5 year projections (Nov 2011)
have already been exceeded, in both IPv4 Internet Routes and Active
ASN's.

The problem isn't that we have 300,000 "global routes" on the
Internet (http://www.cidr-report.org/as2.0/#General_Status), but
that there are other things that compete for TCAM space. It's that TCAM
must hold not only the global routes, but also:

- Internal routes. Your IGP routes, no-exported customer
deagregations, blackhole routes, etc.
- MPLS Labels, including:
- MPLS Traffic Engineering
- MPLS VPN Identifiers
- Virtual Routing Instances for Layer 3 VPN's.
- ARP Entries
- Multicast Routes

Unfortunately details are hard to come by as most of the folks who
see this in any significant way (e.g. global "tier 1" full service
ISP's) tend not to release too many specific numbers for competitive
reasons.

That said, even using some basic assumptions (some of which are in
the preso) those 300,000 global routes might have added to them:

300,000 global routes
150,000 internal routes
20,000 MPLS labels
200,000 VPN/VRF Routes
5,000 ARP Entries
20,000 Multicast Routes
--------
695,000 TCAM Entries Consumed

That's today, right now, in major ISP's routers. All the sudden
those "1 million route" core routers don't seem so large.

Keep in mind we've passed the 2006 projection in this report in 3
years, not 5. So we're growing faster than we expected. Add in
your 70,000 route IPv6 table, plus growth, and the 1 million route
routers are probably failing sometime in 2011.

Someone will likely pipe up, but Cisco has a 3 million route processor
now! (I believe that is the spec of the just announced PRP3, but
can't find a reference on Cisco's web site). Yes, that's a route
processor that can do the job, but in these high end boxes the TCAM
is distributed on the linecards. So upgrading from the 1 million
route TCAM core routers to the 3 Million route TCAM means upgrading
every linecard in each router you upgrade.

Ouch.

The picture I painted above is actually the rosy part of the picture.
Many of these backbones have older equipment in the core which can't
even do 1M routes. They use careful design and other techniques
to limit the number of entries particular boxes have to see.

> The problematic time scale is that time where we have to support dual
> stack for a majority of the network. That's what will
> really stress the CAM as the IPv6 table becomes meaningfully large
> (but not huge) and the IPv4 table cannot yet be
> retired.

While I think Verizon's move is somewhat premature, I can see why
they might be afraid of routing table growth. I think there is an
extremely high probability that given the growth of the table due
to primarily to IPv6 and the growth of MPLS VPN offerings, combined
with the current economic climate which has reduced the capital
available for upgrades that we will see several providers "hit the
wall" of various popular bits of equipment. I think some of the
engineering staff at various major providers has already realized
this as well.

We don't seem to have a technological solution. LISP has scaling
issues of its own, and would require swapping out a huge amount of
equipment. TCAM scaling is at best cost prohibitive, at worst not
possible due to the physical ram speed, and both are being improved at a
modest rate (the preso suggests 10% per year).

Worse, the problem is being made worse at an alarming rate. MPLS
VPN's are quicky replacing frame relay, ATM, and leased line circuits
adding MPLS lables and VPN/VRF routes to edge routers. Various
RIR's are pushing "PI for all" in IPv6 based on addressing availbility.
Some networks are actually finally using multicast for IPTV services,
generating much larger number of entries than the global multicast table
would otherwise indicate.

The next 5 years may bring internet instability problems and route
filtering on a scale we haven't seen since the early 90's.

--
Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy [ In reply to ]
I get asked often enough about what's in 701's IPv6 routes so I just
dumped it to a plain text file for anyone interested:

http://www.rollernet.us/wordpress/as701-ipv6/

~Seth
Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy [ In reply to ]
Leo Bicknell wrote:
>
> Worse, the problem is being made worse at an alarming rate. MPLS
> VPN's are quicky replacing frame relay, ATM, and leased line circuits
> adding MPLS lables and VPN/VRF routes to edge routers. Various
> RIR's are pushing "PI for all" in IPv6 based on addressing availbility.
> Some networks are actually finally using multicast for IPTV services,
> generating much larger number of entries than the global multicast table
> would otherwise indicate.
>

It's not the RIR's fault. IPv6 wasn't designed with any kind of workable
site multihoming. The only goal seems to have been to limit /32's to an
"ISP" but screw you if you aren't one. There was no alternative and it's
been how long now? PI, multihoming, multicast, etc. is reality because
the internet is now Very Serious Business for many, many people.

Yes, I know there's hacks like SHIM6 and I don't wish to go OT into a
debate about them, so I'll just say that if there had been a viable
alternative to multihoming as we know it I think it would have been
given a go before policy got pushed to the RIR's to allow IPv6 PI.

~Seth
Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy [ In reply to ]
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009, Seth Mattinen wrote:

> It's not the RIR's fault. IPv6 wasn't designed with any kind of workable
> site multihoming. The only goal seems to have been to limit /32's to an
> "ISP" but screw you if you aren't one. There was no alternative and it's
> been how long now? PI, multihoming, multicast, etc. is reality because
> the internet is now Very Serious Business for many, many people.

IPv6 -policy- wasn't initially designed for any workable site multihoming.
The addressing and BGP stuff works fine for it. Its just not "different"
to the issues faced with IPv4.




adrian
Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy [ In reply to ]
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 10:13 PM, Seth Mattinen <sethm@rollernet.us> wrote:
> Leo Bicknell wrote:
>>
>> Worse, the problem is being made worse at an alarming rate.  MPLS
>> VPN's are quicky replacing frame relay, ATM, and leased line circuits
>> adding MPLS lables and VPN/VRF routes to edge routers.  Various
>> RIR's are pushing "PI for all" in IPv6 based on addressing availbility.
>> Some networks are actually finally using multicast for IPTV services,
>> generating much larger number of entries than the global multicast table
>> would otherwise indicate.
>>
>
> It's not the RIR's fault. IPv6 wasn't designed with any kind of workable
> site multihoming. The only goal seems to have been to limit /32's to an

here's where a pointer to this dicussion of ~4yrs ago should be (on
this list no less)... that said: "Hey, this is afu, if you as
operators want this to work properly, please, please, please get your
butts on v6ops@ietf and make some noise."

I believe that'd have been from me, but marla azinger also sent out
some similar emails and presented 2-3 times at past nanog meetings
about multihoming options wrt ipv6. This ain't gonna get fixed by
nanog-kvetching.

> "ISP" but screw you if you aren't one. There was no alternative and it's
> been how long now? PI, multihoming, multicast, etc. is reality because
> the internet is now Very Serious Business for many, many people.

v6 was designed in an era quite different than today's network. there
were a large number of assumptions made, practically none of which
hold water today. this can't get fixed here, please see
v6man/v6ops@ietf.

Alternately please see rrg@ietf or lisp@ietf, rrg's looking to make a
decision on their research 'soon', lisp is looking for active folks to
provide comment/direction...

> Yes, I know there's hacks like SHIM6 and I don't wish to go OT into a

there are no (save lisp) network based 'hacks' for this...
shim6/hip/mip all basically do host-level multihoming, which is cool,
and may be useful to some folks, but they are not useful for folks
trying to do TE in the network. (which also was hashed out quite a bit
on this list)

> debate about them, so I'll just say that if there had been a viable
> alternative to multihoming as we know it I think it would have been
> given a go before policy got pushed to the RIR's to allow IPv6 PI.

100% agreement... wanna join in the discussion and offer some
options/fixes/commentary?

-chris
Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy [ In reply to ]
In a message written on Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 07:13:04PM -0700, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> Leo Bicknell wrote:
> > Worse, the problem is being made worse at an alarming rate. MPLS
> > VPN's are quicky replacing frame relay, ATM, and leased line circuits
> > adding MPLS lables and VPN/VRF routes to edge routers. Various
> > RIR's are pushing "PI for all" in IPv6 based on addressing availbility.
> > Some networks are actually finally using multicast for IPTV services,
> > generating much larger number of entries than the global multicast table
> > would otherwise indicate.
>
> It's not the RIR's fault. IPv6 wasn't designed with any kind of workable
> site multihoming. The only goal seems to have been to limit /32's to an
> "ISP" but screw you if you aren't one. There was no alternative and it's
> been how long now? PI, multihoming, multicast, etc. is reality because
> the internet is now Very Serious Business for many, many people.

I may have editorialized in a way that was not completely clear.

I agree that due to lack of an alternative "PI IPv6" is necessary
and effectively the only option we have right now. Were IPv6 policy
to only allow those who could get IPv4 PI to get IPv6 PI I would
say the problem was "the same".

However, the reason I say it is being made worse is that there is
a subset of the RIR community who sees the lack of scarcity of
addres space as a reason to provide IPv6 PI to people who cannot
qualify for IPv4 PI. My impression of the current RIR policy trends
are resulting in a situation that more folks will be able to get
IPv6 PI than can currently get IPv4 PI. Hence why I put that in
the list of things making it worse.

> Yes, I know there's hacks like SHIM6 and I don't wish to go OT into a
> debate about them, so I'll just say that if there had been a viable
> alternative to multihoming as we know it I think it would have been
> given a go before policy got pushed to the RIR's to allow IPv6 PI.

The only idea I have seen that holds any promise is LISP. There
is working code, and the idea is sound. However, like squeezing a
balloon while it makes some issues better it then puts pressure in
other directions. It trades off TCAM lookups for LOC/ID lookups
and caching. It's not clear to me on an Internet scale system this
is better; but I do hope the folks doing that work continue on the
chance that it is...

--
Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy [ In reply to ]
Seth Mattinen wrote:
> Leo Bicknell wrote:
>> Worse, the problem is being made worse at an alarming rate. MPLS
>> VPN's are quicky replacing frame relay, ATM, and leased line circuits
>> adding MPLS lables and VPN/VRF routes to edge routers. Various
>> RIR's are pushing "PI for all" in IPv6 based on addressing availbility.
>> Some networks are actually finally using multicast for IPTV services,
>> generating much larger number of entries than the global multicast table
>> would otherwise indicate.
>>
>
> It's not the RIR's fault. IPv6 wasn't designed with any kind of workable
> site multihoming.

Lest anyone forget it has the same non-workable site-multihoming that
has allowed the internet to grow to the size it is today. by non-working
we mean not-better than ipv4.

We actually know how to run that network pain and all.

> The only goal seems to have been to limit /32's to an
> "ISP" but screw you if you aren't one. There was no alternative and it's
> been how long now? PI, multihoming, multicast, etc. is reality because
> the internet is now Very Serious Business for many, many people.
>
> Yes, I know there's hacks like SHIM6 and I don't wish to go OT into a
> debate about them, so I'll just say that if there had been a viable
> alternative to multihoming as we know it I think it would have been
> given a go before policy got pushed to the RIR's to allow IPv6 PI.
>
> ~Seth
>
Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy [ In reply to ]
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 17:40:36 PDT, David Conrad said:
> On Oct 12, 2009, at 5:09 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > With IPv6, it probably won't be the ideal 1:1 ratio, but, it will come
> much closer.
>
> I wasn't aware people would be doing traffic engineering differently in
> IPv6 than in IPv4.

You get some substantial wins for the non-TE case by being able to fix
the legacy cruft. For instance, AS1312 advertises 4 prefixes:
63.164.28.0/22, 128.173.0.0/16, 192.70.187.0/24, 198.82.0.0/16
but on the IPv6 side we've just got 2001:468:c80::/48.

And we're currently advertising *more* address space in one /48 than we
are in the 4 IPv4 prefixes - we have a large chunk of wireless network that
is currently NAT'ed into the 172.31 space because we simply ran out of room
in our 2 /16s - but we give those users globally routed IPv6 addresses.
Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy [ In reply to ]
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:

> You get some substantial wins for the non-TE case by being able to fix
> the legacy cruft. For instance, AS1312 advertises 4 prefixes:
> 63.164.28.0/22, 128.173.0.0/16, 192.70.187.0/24, 198.82.0.0/16
> but on the IPv6 side we've just got 2001:468:c80::/48.
>
> And we're currently advertising *more* address space in one /48 than we
> are in the 4 IPv4 prefixes - we have a large chunk of wireless network that
> is currently NAT'ed into the 172.31 space because we simply ran out of room
> in our 2 /16s - but we give those users globally routed IPv6 addresses.


I suggest you're not yet doing enough IPv6 traffic to have to care
about IPv6 TE.

2c,



Adrian
Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy [ In reply to ]
Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
>
>> You get some substantial wins for the non-TE case by being able to fix
>> the legacy cruft. For instance, AS1312 advertises 4 prefixes:
>> 63.164.28.0/22, 128.173.0.0/16, 192.70.187.0/24, 198.82.0.0/16
>> but on the IPv6 side we've just got 2001:468:c80::/48.
>>
>> And we're currently advertising *more* address space in one /48 than we
>> are in the 4 IPv4 prefixes - we have a large chunk of wireless network that
>> is currently NAT'ed into the 172.31 space because we simply ran out of room
>> in our 2 /16s - but we give those users globally routed IPv6 addresses.
>
>
> I suggest you're not yet doing enough IPv6 traffic to have to care
> about IPv6 TE.

I think he was pointing out that extra routes due to "slow start"
policies should not be a factor in v6. My guess is that is about
half of the "extra" routes announced today, the other half being
TE routes.

Speaking of TE, it's going to be interesting to see how we deal with
that. We can't expect everyone to accept any /48 that gets announced.
I'm still waiting for the first time someone blows up the Internet
by announcing all 65536 /48's in their /32. I'm amazed it hasn't
happened yet.

Stricter use of the IRR might help if there wasn't rampant auto
proxy registering going on. RPKI may be the answer since that
can't be proxy-registered. That would at least mitigate router
bugs and carelessness. The issue of what intentional TE routes
are seen as "acceptable" is another issue.

- Kevin
Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy [ In reply to ]
Kevin Loch wrote:
> Adrian Chadd wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
>>
>>> You get some substantial wins for the non-TE case by being able to fix
>>> the legacy cruft. For instance, AS1312 advertises 4 prefixes:
>>> 63.164.28.0/22, 128.173.0.0/16, 192.70.187.0/24, 198.82.0.0/16
>>> but on the IPv6 side we've just got 2001:468:c80::/48.
>>>
>>> And we're currently advertising *more* address space in one /48 than we
>>> are in the 4 IPv4 prefixes - we have a large chunk of wireless
>>> network that
>>> is currently NAT'ed into the 172.31 space because we simply ran out
>>> of room
>>> in our 2 /16s - but we give those users globally routed IPv6 addresses.
>>
>>
>> I suggest you're not yet doing enough IPv6 traffic to have to care
>> about IPv6 TE.
>
> I think he was pointing out that extra routes due to "slow start"
> policies should not be a factor in v6. My guess is that is about
> half of the "extra" routes announced today, the other half being
> TE routes.
>
> Speaking of TE, it's going to be interesting to see how we deal with
> that. We can't expect everyone to accept any /48 that gets announced.
> I'm still waiting for the first time someone blows up the Internet
> by announcing all 65536 /48's in their /32. I'm amazed it hasn't
> happened yet.
>
> Stricter use of the IRR might help if there wasn't rampant auto
> proxy registering going on. RPKI may be the answer since that
> can't be proxy-registered. That would at least mitigate router
> bugs and carelessness. The issue of what intentional TE routes
> are seen as "acceptable" is another issue.
>

I would love to see TE die a painful death. Maybe someone announcing
65536 routes will bring it to a swift end.

~Seth
Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy [ In reply to ]
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 00:46:00 EDT, Kevin Loch said:
> Adrian Chadd wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 13, 2009, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> >
> >> You get some substantial wins for the non-TE case by being able to fix
> >> the legacy cruft. For instance, AS1312 advertises 4 prefixes:
> >> 63.164.28.0/22, 128.173.0.0/16, 192.70.187.0/24, 198.82.0.0/16
> >> but on the IPv6 side we've just got 2001:468:c80::/48.
> >>
> >> And we're currently advertising *more* address space in one /48 than we
> >> are in the 4 IPv4 prefixes - we have a large chunk of wireless network that
> >> is currently NAT'ed into the 172.31 space because we simply ran out of room
> >> in our 2 /16s - but we give those users globally routed IPv6 addresses.
> >
> >
> > I suggest you're not yet doing enough IPv6 traffic to have to care
> > about IPv6 TE.
>
> I think he was pointing out that extra routes due to "slow start"
> policies should not be a factor in v6. My guess is that is about
> half of the "extra" routes announced today, the other half being
> TE routes.

Exactly. We have 4 prefixes only because we got slow-started and similar
hysterical raisins, we don't use those for TE at all. If we wanted to do any
globally visible TE that actually made a difference, we'd have to announce a
more-specific out of one of the /16s anyhow, since that's where all our traffic
generators/sinks are (and probably a matching more-specific out of our v6 /48).
So we're always going to have 4+N on the IPv4 and 1+N on the IPv6 side.

(And if we'd gotten more address space for that wireless net, we'd be at
5+N rather than 4+N).
Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy [ In reply to ]
On 13/10/2009, at 5:46 PM, Kevin Loch wrote:

> I think he was pointing out that extra routes due to "slow start"
> policies should not be a factor in v6. My guess is that is about
> half of the "extra" routes announced today, the other half being
> TE routes.


You can pretty easily figure out how many advertised prefixes are
intentional de-aggregates, and you can get a fairly good idea as to
how many of them are for TE as well I expect, by looking for different
AS paths.

Someone mentioned some slides earlier in this thread by Vince Fuller
at APRICOT early '07 that from memory have pretty good data on this.

--
Nathan Ward
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 12:41 PM, Mike Leber <mleber@he.net> wrote:
...

> We don't ignore comments about connectivity, in fact quite the opposite.
> We study each AS and which ASes are behind them. We work on getting
> peering with the specific AS, in the case that they are unresponsive,
> getting the ASes behind them.
>
> Among the things we do to discuss peering: send email to any relevant
> contacts, call them, contact them on IRC, send people to the relevant
> conferences to seek them out specifically, send people to their offices,
> etc.
>
> So far we stop short of baking cakes, but hey...
>

And tonight we saw in public that even that path is being attempted:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/77519640@N00/4031434206/

(and yes, it was yummy and enjoyed by all at the peering BoF!)

So Cogent...won't you please make nice with HE.net and get back
together again? ^_^

Matt
(speaking for neither party, but very happy to eat cake nonetheless)
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 10:53:17PM -0700, Matthew Petach wrote:
> And tonight we saw in public that even that path is being attempted:
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/77519640@N00/4031434206/
>
> (and yes, it was yummy and enjoyed by all at the peering BoF!)
>
> So Cogent...won't you please make nice with HE.net and get back
> together again? ^_^
>
> Matt
> (speaking for neither party, but very happy to eat cake nonetheless)

"Cogent Pleas IPv6"... for some reason that "cake typo" is even funnier
than the correct version. :)

--
Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 12:13 AM, Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net>wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 10:53:17PM -0700, Matthew Petach wrote:
> > And tonight we saw in public that even that path is being attempted:
> >
> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/77519640@N00/4031434206/
> >
> > (and yes, it was yummy and enjoyed by all at the peering BoF!)
> >
> > So Cogent...won't you please make nice with HE.net and get back
> > together again? ^_^
> >
> > Matt
> > (speaking for neither party, but very happy to eat cake nonetheless)
>
> "Cogent Pleas IPv6"... for some reason that "cake typo" is even funnier
> than the correct version. :)
>
>
And now even better shots of the cake have been forthcoming from
people. :)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/77519640@N00/4031195041/

(I was all the way at the far other end of the room taking notes on the
laptop,
so I never got to see the cake intact at all--all the photos are from others
who
were closer to the cake, and got to see it in its pristine glory).

Fortunately, I did get to partake in the eating of it. ^_^

Matt
(This cake is great, it's so delicious and moist...* ;)



*http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/e/ellen_mclain/still_alive.html
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
please full support huricane !

De-peer your ipv6 peering cogent/telia or max prepend it.

!





Le mercredi 21 octobre 2009 à 05:00 -0700, Matthew Petach a écrit :
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 12:13 AM, Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net>wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 10:53:17PM -0700, Matthew Petach wrote:
> > > And tonight we saw in public that even that path is being attempted:
> > >
> > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/77519640@N00/4031434206/
> > >
> > > (and yes, it was yummy and enjoyed by all at the peering BoF!)
> > >
> > > So Cogent...won't you please make nice with HE.net and get back
> > > together again? ^_^
> > >
> > > Matt
> > > (speaking for neither party, but very happy to eat cake nonetheless)
> >
> > "Cogent Pleas IPv6"... for some reason that "cake typo" is even funnier
> > than the correct version. :)
> >
> >
> And now even better shots of the cake have been forthcoming from
> people. :)
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/77519640@N00/4031195041/
>
> (I was all the way at the far other end of the room taking notes on the
> laptop,
> so I never got to see the cake intact at all--all the photos are from others
> who
> were closer to the cake, and got to see it in its pristine glory).
>
> Fortunately, I did get to partake in the eating of it. ^_^
>
> Matt
> (This cake is great, it's so delicious and moist...* ;)
>
>
>
> *http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/e/ellen_mclain/still_alive.html
>
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
Please don't break existing connectivity in an effort to show support
for Hurricane.

That's going in the wrong direction and it doesn't help the users of
the internet, your customers,
or ours.

Please do continue to, or start peering with Hurricane.

The internet works best when people peer. Breaking or damaging that in
any way is not
helping any of our customers and it is contrary to Hurricane's desire.

We appreciate the intended message of support, but, it's most
important to preserve
functionality for all of our customers.

Thanks,

Owen DeLong
IPv6 Evangelist
Hurricane Electric

On Oct 22, 2009, at 5:08 AM, Frédéric wrote:

>
> please full support huricane !
>
> De-peer your ipv6 peering cogent/telia or max prepend it.
>
> !
>
>
>
>
>
> Le mercredi 21 octobre 2009 à 05:00 -0700, Matthew Petach a écrit :
>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 12:13 AM, Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net
>> >wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 10:53:17PM -0700, Matthew Petach wrote:
>>>> And tonight we saw in public that even that path is being
>>>> attempted:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/77519640@N00/4031434206/
>>>>
>>>> (and yes, it was yummy and enjoyed by all at the peering BoF!)
>>>>
>>>> So Cogent...won't you please make nice with HE.net and get back
>>>> together again? ^_^
>>>>
>>>> Matt
>>>> (speaking for neither party, but very happy to eat cake
>>>> nonetheless)
>>>
>>> "Cogent Pleas IPv6"... for some reason that "cake typo" is even
>>> funnier
>>> than the correct version. :)
>>>
>>>
>> And now even better shots of the cake have been forthcoming from
>> people. :)
>>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/77519640@N00/4031195041/
>>
>> (I was all the way at the far other end of the room taking notes on
>> the
>> laptop,
>> so I never got to see the cake intact at all--all the photos are
>> from others
>> who
>> were closer to the cake, and got to see it in its pristine glory).
>>
>> Fortunately, I did get to partake in the eating of it. ^_^
>>
>> Matt
>> (This cake is great, it's so delicious and moist...* ;)
>>
>>
>>
>> *http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/e/ellen_mclain/still_alive.html
>>
>
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
yes of course, sorry my wrong use of english.


Le jeudi 22 octobre 2009 à 05:19 -0700, Owen DeLong a écrit :
> Please don't break existing connectivity in an effort to show support
> for Hurricane.
>
> That's going in the wrong direction and it doesn't help the users of
> the internet, your customers,
> or ours.
>
> Please do continue to, or start peering with Hurricane.
>
> The internet works best when people peer. Breaking or damaging that in
> any way is not
> helping any of our customers and it is contrary to Hurricane's desire.
>
> We appreciate the intended message of support, but, it's most
> important to preserve
> functionality for all of our customers.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Owen DeLong
> IPv6 Evangelist
> Hurricane Electric
>
> On Oct 22, 2009, at 5:08 AM, Frédéric wrote:
>
> >
> > please full support huricane !
> >
> > De-peer your ipv6 peering cogent/telia or max prepend it.
> >
> > !
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Le mercredi 21 octobre 2009 à 05:00 -0700, Matthew Petach a écrit :
> >> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 12:13 AM, Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net
> >> >wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 10:53:17PM -0700, Matthew Petach wrote:
> >>>> And tonight we saw in public that even that path is being
> >>>> attempted:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/77519640@N00/4031434206/
> >>>>
> >>>> (and yes, it was yummy and enjoyed by all at the peering BoF!)
> >>>>
> >>>> So Cogent...won't you please make nice with HE.net and get back
> >>>> together again? ^_^
> >>>>
> >>>> Matt
> >>>> (speaking for neither party, but very happy to eat cake
> >>>> nonetheless)
> >>>
> >>> "Cogent Pleas IPv6"... for some reason that "cake typo" is even
> >>> funnier
> >>> than the correct version. :)
> >>>
> >>>
> >> And now even better shots of the cake have been forthcoming from
> >> people. :)
> >>
> >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/77519640@N00/4031195041/
> >>
> >> (I was all the way at the far other end of the room taking notes on
> >> the
> >> laptop,
> >> so I never got to see the cake intact at all--all the photos are
> >> from others
> >> who
> >> were closer to the cake, and got to see it in its pristine glory).
> >>
> >> Fortunately, I did get to partake in the eating of it. ^_^
> >>
> >> Matt
> >> (This cake is great, it's so delicious and moist...* ;)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> *http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/e/ellen_mclain/still_alive.html
> >>
> >
>
>
RE: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
hello

nobody has to peer with some operator for free. they are simply trading
internet services. they do not have to believe in FREE (as in price)
internet connectivity.. if they peered you, you would decrease the price
of the products even more and more...

ask cogentco (as174) for paid peering. they will give you nice paid
peering or ip transit offer that you can use for both ipv4 and ipv6.

for example i would assume they would be OK charging he.net (as6939) 5
usd cent per megabit.

you need to understand that you are never going to become tier1 without
support from as174. they are currently cheapest and they are okay with
dual homing too. think like united nations security council.

you must think twice; are you gaining any profit by segmenting
world-wide internet? or are you loosing prospective single-homing
customers because you lack connectivity to as174 clients?

we must think big. asking for a money is OKay while begging for FREE
service is not... operating NOC and backbone has some expenses that
henet wouldnt understand with their rented links. cogentco bear much
more expenses than henet

i am not here to insult henet but i honestly think that they are
contemptible... just like google's peering decision makers.

sir! if you have become big content/eyeball operator, doesnt mean that
every operator in the industry have to respect your tier-1 policy and
give you their services for free. thats the thing henet and google
couldnt understand. think like UNSC and you will understand

even USA can not do anything they want in the world, as RU has voting
right, too.

TL;DR; instead of crying here and begging for free service. send real
representatives that could negotiate the money you would pay.

bye
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
Think twice before asking the largest global IPv6 network as measured by
prefixes announced to pay Cogent for peering.

Also what’s with Telia here?

Best regards
August Yang

On 2022-08-11 09:46, VOLKAN KIRIK wrote:
> hello
>
> nobody has to peer with some operator for free. they are simply
> trading internet services. they do not have to believe in FREE (as in
> price) internet connectivity.. if they peered you, you would decrease
> the price of the products even more and more...
>
> ask cogentco (as174) for paid peering. they will give you nice paid
> peering or ip transit offer that you can use for both ipv4 and ipv6.
>
> for example i would assume they would be OK charging he.net (as6939) 5
> usd cent per megabit.
>
> you need to understand that you are never going to become tier1
> without support from as174. they are currently cheapest and they are
> okay with dual homing too. think like united nations security council.
>
> you must think twice; are you gaining any profit by segmenting
> world-wide internet? or are you loosing prospective single-homing
> customers because you lack connectivity to as174 clients?
>
> we must think big. asking for a money is OKay while begging for FREE
> service is not... operating NOC and backbone has some expenses that
> henet wouldnt understand with their rented links. cogentco bear much
> more expenses than henet
>
> i am not here to insult henet but i honestly think that they are
> contemptible... just like google's peering decision makers.
>
> sir! if you have become big content/eyeball operator, doesnt mean that
> every operator in the industry have to respect your tier-1 policy and
> give you their services for free. thats the thing henet and google
> couldnt understand. think like UNSC and you will understand
>
> even USA can not do anything they want in the world, as RU has voting
> right, too.
>
> TL;DR; instead of crying here and begging for free service. send real
> representatives that could negotiate the money you would pay.
>
> bye
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
* volkirik@gmail.com (VOLKAN KIRIK) [Thu 11 Aug 2022, 15:52 CEST]:
>hello

You're replying to a thread from 2009. Please advise.


-- Niels.
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
Once upon a time, Niels Bakker <niels=nanog@bakker.net> said:
> * volkirik@gmail.com (VOLKAN KIRIK) [Thu 11 Aug 2022, 15:52 CEST]:
> >hello
>
> You're replying to a thread from 2009. Please advise.

Maybe they're a Cogent sales rep that, when trying snipe a customer's
customer, got push-back on "can I get to Google and HE on IPv6 on your
circuit?".
--
Chris Adams <cma@cmadams.net>
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
the companies are here to trade, charge prices for their services.... so
why blame cogent for doing what they supposed to be doing?

why did hurricane stop BGP tunnel service? and started asking for 500
usd/month for peering? expense of BGP servers? or did they realize ipv6
prefixes does not cost MRC, so their network peers are not serious business.

why did Google start charging for cloud gigabytes?

if he.net opens free BGP tunnel service back; and also announce full
transit routes on IXPs, thats just zero (payback)...

if they provide free ip transit to everyone; I would think that cogent
should provide free network access to them...

if google doesnt charge for traffic in cloud services, then they will be
largest in my eyes.

if cogent asks for a price, then they have to pay (to become tier1)...
simple as that. or they could stay as tier-2 as long as they want. thats
called free as in freedom. not as in price.

*doesnt level3 pay comcast money for paid-peering?*

building eyeball network, enabling fiber connectivity in buildings has
much more meaning to me...

so honestly i am fine with segmented ipv6 internet. i would just not
prefer he.net in my IP transit blend, as i do not have to respect crying
beggars.... and i could choose telia+cogent.

he.net guys are just charging you money for dumping your traffic in IX
Points, that you can do yourself, be eyeball or content network..

btw, losts of useless prefixes... think an asn has 1000 ipv6 prefixes
but less than 1 ge traffic, while there are networks exceeding 10ge with
just one prefix. ipv6 nat is spreading. just like ipv4 nat.

could you analyze traffic amount of ASNs? no. then dont fuckin call them
largest or i will kick your monkey ass.

i am the god!


11.08.2022 17:01 tarihinde August Yang yazd?:
> Think twice before asking the largest global IPv6 network as measured
> by prefixes announced to pay Cogent for peering.
>
> Also what’s with Telia here?
>
> Best regards
> August Yang
>
> On 2022-08-11 09:46, VOLKAN KIRIK wrote:
>> hello
>>
>> nobody has to peer with some operator for free. they are simply
>> trading internet services. they do not have to believe in FREE (as in
>> price) internet connectivity.. if they peered you, you would decrease
>> the price of the products even more and more...
>>
>> ask cogentco (as174) for paid peering. they will give you nice paid
>> peering or ip transit offer that you can use for both ipv4 and ipv6.
>>
>> for example i would assume they would be OK charging he.net (as6939) 5
>> usd cent per megabit.
>>
>> you need to understand that you are never going to become tier1
>> without support from as174. they are currently cheapest and they are
>> okay with dual homing too. think like united nations security council.
>>
>> you must think twice; are you gaining any profit by segmenting
>> world-wide internet? or are you loosing prospective single-homing
>> customers because you lack connectivity to as174 clients?
>>
>> we must think big. asking for a money is OKay while begging for FREE
>> service is not... operating NOC and backbone has some expenses that
>> henet wouldnt understand with their rented links. cogentco bear much
>> more expenses than henet
>>
>> i am not here to insult henet but i honestly think that they are
>> contemptible... just like google's peering decision makers.
>>
>> sir! if you have become big content/eyeball operator, doesnt mean that
>> every operator in the industry have to respect your tier-1 policy and
>> give you their services for free. thats the thing henet and google
>> couldnt understand. think like UNSC and you will understand
>>
>> even USA can not do anything they want in the world, as RU has voting
>> right, too.
>>
>> TL;DR; instead of crying here and begging for free service. send real
>> representatives that could negotiate the money you would pay.
>>
>> bye
Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
[.Removing peering@he.net from this because there's no reason to spam them.]


Matt Harris|VP of Infrastructure
816-256-5446|Direct
Looking for help?
Helpdesk|Email Support
We build customized end-to-end technology solutions powered by NetFire Cloud.
On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 9:21 AM VOLKAN KIRIK <volkirik@gmail.com> wrote:

> the companies are here to trade, charge prices for their services.... so
> why blame cogent for doing what they supposed to be doing?
>
> why did hurricane stop BGP tunnel service? and started asking for 500
> usd/month for peering? expense of BGP servers? or did they realize ipv6
> prefixes does not cost MRC, so their network peers are not serious business.
>
> why did Google start charging for cloud gigabytes?
>
> if he.net opens free BGP tunnel service back; and also announce full
> transit routes on IXPs, thats just zero (payback)...
>
> if they provide free ip transit to everyone; I would think that cogent
> should provide free network access to them...
>
> if google doesnt charge for traffic in cloud services, then they will be
> largest in my eyes.
>
> if cogent asks for a price, then they have to pay (to become tier1)...
> simple as that. or they could stay as tier-2 as long as they want. thats
> called free as in freedom. not as in price.
>
In reality "tier 1" vs "tier 2" is about as meaningful as not at all. At
the end of the day, building a network has a variety of costs associated
with it. Some folks bury fiber, and some folks lease it from them. Some
folks peer on route servers at popular exchanges, and others don't. When
customers are seeking transit services, they go with a provider who is
on-net where it counts for them, can provide the capacity they need at a
reasonable price, and often also consider quality of that company's
services and reputation.

> *doesnt level3 pay comcast money for paid-peering?*
>
> building eyeball network, enabling fiber connectivity in buildings has
> much more meaning to me...
>
> so honestly i am fine with segmented ipv6 internet. i would just not
> prefer he.net in my IP transit blend, as i do not have to respect crying
> beggars.... and i could choose telia+cogent.
>
Many folks avoid Cogent for a variety of reasons, but in general their
policies towards congestion and their marketing practices have, at various
times, caused large segments of the community to speak up.

> he.net guys are just charging you money for dumping your traffic in IX
> Points, that you can do yourself, be eyeball or content network..
>
Can you prove in any meaningful way that this is less optimal or even
substantively different from what anyone who provides full table transit
service does?

> btw, losts of useless prefixes... think an asn has 1000 ipv6 prefixes but
> less than 1 ge traffic, while there are networks exceeding 10ge with just
> one prefix. ipv6 nat is spreading. just like ipv4 nat.
>
What? IPv6 NAT? Please provide data to support the claim that substantial
numbers of people are adopting NAT for IPv6?

> could you analyze traffic amount of ASNs? no. then dont fuckin call them
> largest or i will kick your monkey ass.
>
i am the god!
>
This is not appropriate behavior for NANOG's mailing list, imho. I'm not
sure what makes you think utilizing words like this is going to help your
point, but I guarantee it isn't.
And for the record, lots of folks here analyze traffic by AS source.

- Matt
RE: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering [ In reply to ]
The reply must've been stuck in Cogent's network for the past 13 years.

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+chris.wright=commnetbroadband.com@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Chris Adams
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2022 10:17 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering

Once upon a time, Niels Bakker <niels=nanog@bakker.net> said:
> * volkirik@gmail.com (VOLKAN KIRIK) [Thu 11 Aug 2022, 15:52 CEST]:
> >hello
>
> You're replying to a thread from 2009. Please advise.

Maybe they're a Cogent sales rep that, when trying snipe a customer's customer, got push-back on "can I get to Google and HE on IPv6 on your circuit?".
--
Chris Adams <cma@cmadams.net>