IPv6 Internet is broken

This is a “Cogent is broken” problem and not an IPv6 is broken problem. Anyone who has to deal with getting full tables for any significant length of time knows not to single home to Cogent— they’ll do it on v4 peerings too (See their spats with AOL and Level 3)

Same feelings as others: avoid Cogent at all costs and encourage anyone who solely uses Cogent to switch to another provider, preferably in a multi-home configuration. It&#x27;s not even this issue, Cogent simply wants your dollars and do f***-all but the absolute minimum.<p>Basically, most tier-1 providers allows settlement-free peering with anyone who can meet some physical requirements (like having mutual interconnection in America, Europe and Asia) and legal ones (everyone wants to avoid sanctions). HE clearly meets this requirement. Google also clearly meets this requirement. Both are not connected to Cogent despite both are willing to interconnect to Cogent.<p>Cogent just allows connections to whoever <i>they</i> feel to connect, they don&#x27;t have a criteria except for &quot;if we allow them, will they kill our business&quot;?

Isn&#x27;t this a common failure pattern in tech now? A big company gets &quot;successful&quot; by selling cheap or free. They build a big crowd who are accepting of poor service then inflict arbitrary decisions on their customers, and once the abuse is normalised they spread &quot;broken&quot; tech through standards-breaking and non-interoperability. People then justify the problem because a mob of beaten-down users meekly accept the situation and anyone asking for better is dubbed an &quot;elitist&quot; or &quot;idealist&quot;. For example, between them Google and Microsoft have wrecked email. IPv6 doesn&#x27;t look &quot;broken&quot; here, it&#x27;s just under attack.

No mention yet of the HE&#x2F;Cogent peering cake?<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.datacenterknowledge.com&#x2F;archives&#x2F;2009&#x2F;10&#x2F;22&#x2F;peering-disputes-migrate-to-ipv6" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.datacenterknowledge.com&#x2F;archives&#x2F;2009&#x2F;10&#x2F;22&#x2F;peer...</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=7CObnXjmDtg" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=7CObnXjmDtg</a>

It&#x27;s not IPv6 that is broken, it&#x27;s fucking Cogent and they have always been like that

Lots of disdain for Cogent on this thread, and very little comments about HE effectively having much the same business model as Cogent: sell pipes as cheap as possible, run them as hot (full) as possible, care little about performance implications.<p>As a transit supplier, they’re both pretty low quality, suited to bulk traffic only. Anything latency&#x2F;loss sensitive goes over other providers.<p>HE and Cogent both are best suited to their roles as carrier of last resort. If you as a customer depend primarily on either of them, that’s a particularly unfortunate situation that should be remediated if possible.

I&#x27;m a Cogent customer and we wouldn&#x27;t be where we are without them, but, they give me the most headaches out of any provider I have to deal with.<p>I tried raising a complaint as their SLA states about packet deliverability&#x2F;guarantees - and I said &quot;well, you have 100% packet loss to HE&quot;... I didn&#x27;t get very far and they basically just blamed it on HE - but, I wonder if someone had more time, if they could make a complaint down this avenue?!

Has there <i>ever</i> been a conversation in which Cogent was the good guy?

&quot;broken&quot;, not really -- in practice anyone who cares about IPv6 connectivity does not use Cogent as their only upstream, or they learn very quickly that Cogent does not provide them with what they advertise. This might impact you if you&#x27;re in the business of buying transit from a tier 1 provider, but that&#x27;s virtually nobody.<p>(It&#x27;s also far from the only issue you&#x27;ll get as a Cogent customer, they&#x27;re generally, uh, pretty shit.)

I&#x27;d say this is a Cogent problem. Not an IPv6 nor an &quot;Internet&quot; problem. Tye solution is to single out Cogent and that class of ISPs, like Telefónica in ES.

It’s generally not a good idea to be single homed anyway. My first network was only upstreamed by HE and I ran into the Cogent situation quite quickly. Adding more upstreams fixed it. But also other NSPs don’t reach everything. Sometimes there are some niche networks that can only be reached over peering or some other transit providers. Though it’s super rare.

IPv6 have many defects BUT allow a lost thing we desperately need NO DAMN needed NAT. Witch means that with a 2Gbps+ f.o. connection you can host your service at home, with a static IPv6 global address and a domain name bound to it.<p>IMVHO many giants obstacle IPv6 NOT because it&#x27;s hard and not so nice BUT because they fear loosing their privileged position. Oh, sure most people do not have TODAY a homeserver but how much would it take to see pre-packaged pseudo-FLOSS homeservers like we see for android &quot;pirate-TV minicomputers&quot;?<p>Try weighting that before judge.

Netflix also refuses to accept HE IPv6 traffic. This was &#x27;fun&#x27; to find out when deploying IPv6 on my home network, and my TV could no longer stream from them.

fortunately from my ISP in Czech republic I can reach both destinations via IPv6 fine. However, the said ISP is giving me only &#x2F;64 IPV6 block therefore limiting it to one subnet. That is poor, really poor implementation that does not allow ipv6 e.g. in my work laptop VLAN. O2 internet(the ISP) - you suck.

Why are packets not routed via peers (customers of cogent) that also peer with HE, or at least peer indirectly with HE?<p>My home ISP certainly can route packets to both HE and Cogent:<p>root@tranzistor:~# ping cogentco.com PING cogentco.com(cogentco.com (2001:550:1::cc01)) 56 data bytes 64 bytes from cogentco.com (2001:550:1::cc01): icmp_seq=1 ttl=56 time=21.1 ms ^C --- cogentco.com ping statistics --- 1 packets transmitted, 1 received, 0% packet loss, time 0msrtt min&#x2F;avg&#x2F;max&#x2F;mdev = 21.107&#x2F;21.107&#x2F;21.107&#x2F;0.000 ms root@tranzistor:~# ping he.net PING he.net(he.net (2001:470:0:503::2)) 56 data bytes 64 bytes from he.net (2001:470:0:503::2): icmp_seq=1 ttl=49 time=164 ms ^C --- he.net ping statistics --- 1 packets transmitted, 1 received, 0% packet loss, time 0ms rtt min&#x2F;avg&#x2F;max&#x2F;mdev = 164.454&#x2F;164.454&#x2F;164.454&#x2F;0.000 ms root@tranzistor:~#<p>Why are packets from cogent to HE not routed via my ISP?

With my ISPs I&#x27;ve had IPv4 broken more often than IPv6.<p>To the point that I&#x27;ve set up an IPv4-over-IPv6 tunnel out, for when IPv4 breaks.

<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Peering#Depeering" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Peering#Depeering</a>

That article doesn&#x27;t have a date (as far as I can see), is that still a problem? Looking up a random cogent ip (www.cogentco.com on bgp.he.net shows they have a route for it: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;bgp.he.net&#x2F;ip&#x2F;2001:550:1::cc01" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;bgp.he.net&#x2F;ip&#x2F;2001:550:1::cc01</a> (might not be true the other way around, I don&#x27;t know how to check -- I can join both networks, but I&#x27;m not on either...)

Title is misleading, should be &quot;Cogent&#x27;s IPv6 support is broken&quot;

Cogent&#x27;s IPv6 peering has been broken forever, as immortalized in the HE &quot;please peer with us&quot; cake[1].<p>[1]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.flickr.com&#x2F;photos&#x2F;mpetach&#x2F;4031195041" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.flickr.com&#x2F;photos&#x2F;mpetach&#x2F;4031195041</a>

Interesting, I just tested that here as well and sure enough my HE peer had no issues going to Google, but my Cogent peer didn&#x27;t. This isn&#x27;t an ipv6 is broken problem this is a Cogent is broken problem.

HE and Google could block traffic to and from Cogent until they submit OR start paying THEM for access. Ill be it would take like less than a week.

I think the article could be better titled &quot;IPv6 Internet Is Broken Right Now&quot; because I read the title initially as the architecture is fundamentally broken, and in reality the article is saying that the architecture isn&#x27;t broken but it is broken right now because of lack of peering agreements.

I would like to know which services would not work or which countries are involved.

TIL hn really hates cogent

This article is from 2021 so I&#x27;m not sure why it&#x27;s being posted again<p><pre><code> Last-Modified: Fri, 13 Aug 2021 04:23:25 GMT</code></pre>

ipv4 or ipv6 no one serious only has a single upstream

IPv6 is a religion, you will not reason with its adepts.<p>Of course they will claim that the whole world is &quot;doing it wrong&quot;, despite the collective failure of humanity to roll out IPv6 for decades and decades.