Cogent - Google - HE Fun

Sun Mar 13 21:25:17 UTC 2016

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 <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."
>>