nick at flhsi.com
Thu Nov 18 16:55:07 CST 2010
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
(855) FLSPEED x106
From: "Jon Auer" <jda at tapodi.net>
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 5:36 PM
To: nanog at 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 <nick at 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" <jda at tapodi.net>
> Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 5:19 PM
> To: nanog at 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
> Time Warner Cable is demanding a new order and additional costs to
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Nick Olsen <nick at 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
> > that we are going to announce.
> > Nick Olsen
> > Network Operations
> > (855) FLSPEED x106
More information about the NANOG