IPv6

Ryan Finnesey ryan.finnesey at HarrierInvestments.com
Thu Nov 18 20:29:23 CST 2010


TWT is not TWC are two separate companies
Cheers
Ryan
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Auer [mailto: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 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 <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 
> > arin that we are going to announce.
> >
> > Nick Olsen
> > Network Operations
> > (855) FLSPEED  x106
> >
> >
> >
> >
>



More information about the NANOG mailing list