I come to the opposite conclusion - that this situation can persist with apparently no business impact to either party shows that IPv6 is still unnecessary.
Matthew Kaufman (Sent from my iPhone) > On Mar 13, 2016, at 7:31 AM, Dennis Burgess <dmburg...@linktechs.net> wrote: > > In the end, google has made a choice. I think these kinds of choices will > delay IPv6 adoption. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Damien Burke [mailto:dam...@supremebytes.com] > Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 2:51 PM > To: Mark Tinka <mark.ti...@seacom.mu>; Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com>; Dennis > Burgess <dmburg...@linktechs.net> > Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org> > Subject: RE: Cogent - Google - HE Fun > > Just received an updated statement from cogent support: > > "We appreciate your concerns. This is a known issue that originates with > Google as it is up to their discretion as to how they announce routes to us > v4 or v6. > > Once again, apologies for any inconvenience." > > And: > > "The SLA does not cover route transit beyond our network. We cannot route to > IPs that are not announced to us by the IP owner, directly or through a > network peer." >
