s/IPv6/Cogent/ :)
No one who is serious about IPv6 is single-homed to Cogent. Arguably, no
one who is serious about "The Internet" is single-homed on either protocol.
Thus your conclusion seems to be more like wishful thinking. :)
Doug
On 03/13/2016 11:20 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
I come to the opposite conclusion - that this situation can persist with
apparently no business impact to either party shows that IPv6 is still
unnecessary.
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."
