Ah, I'm always quick to jump to the TWT !=TWC point. As many people I talk to get that wrong. But yes, Great data point. Seems like most of the bigger upstreams support IPv6.
Nick Olsen Network Operations (855) FLSPEED x106 ---------------------------------------- From: "Jon Auer" <j...@tapodi.net> Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 5:36 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: IPv6 Good to know about TWT, and yes, I know that TWT != TWC... Figured it was a good datapoint considering the concurrent discussion of providers charging for v6... On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Nick Olsen <n...@flhsi.com> wrote: > > TW Telecom, Not Time Warner Cable. And TW Telecom already told me it was a simple change order with a NRC of 25.00 > Haven't talked to cogent about it yet. > > Nick Olsen > Network Operations > (855) FLSPEED x106 > > > > ________________________________ > From: "Jon Auer" <j...@tapodi.net> > Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 5:19 PM > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: IPv6 > > Technically it was a non-event. > Layer 8 wise, they refused to turn up IPv6 without a renewal or new order. > > Time Warner Cable is demanding a new order and additional costs to support V6. > > On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Nick Olsen <n...@flhsi.com> wrote: > > Curious as to who is running IPv6 with TW Telecom or Cogent. > > I'm wanting to turn up native IPv6 with them, And wanted to hear > > thoughts/experiences. > > I assume it should be a "non-event". We've already got a prefix from arin > > that we are going to announce. > > > > Nick Olsen > > Network Operations > > (855) FLSPEED x106 > > > > > > > > >
