Cogent - Google - HE Fun
Matthew Kaufman
matthew at matthew.at
Sun Mar 13 18:20:03 UTC 2016
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 <dmburgess at 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:damien at supremebytes.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 2:51 PM
> To: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.mu>; Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>; Dennis Burgess <dmburgess at linktechs.net>
> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog at 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."
>
More information about the NANOG
mailing list