[126455] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: ipv6 transit over tunneled connection
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Eric Van Tol)
Mon May 17 09:51:46 2010
From: Eric Van Tol <eric@atlantech.net>
To: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>, Jack Carrozzo <jack@crepinc.com>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 09:51:28 -0400
In-Reply-To: <56516858-8108-41E8-BAB8-0139D1C93B2B@puck.nether.net>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jared Mauch [mailto:jared@puck.nether.net]
> Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 2:49 PM
> To: Jack Carrozzo
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: ipv6 transit over tunneled connection
>=20
> I'm curious what providers have not gotten their IPv6
> plans/networks/customer ports enabled.
>=20
> I know that Comcast is doing their trials now (Thanks John!) and will be
> presenting at the upcoming NANOG about their experiences.
>=20
> What parts of the big "I" Internet are not enabled or ready?
>=20
We don't see Savvis, Level3, or AboveNet with IPv6 capabilities in our regi=
on (DC). Two years ago, neither Verizon or AT&T had IPv6, either. Not sur=
e about them now, as we no longer use them for transit. One would think ev=
eryone would have v6 capabilities in the heart of government territory, but=
okay.
For whatever reason, Verio actually charges (or used to) for their IPv6 sep=
arately from IPv4 and to top it all off, it wasn't significantly discounted=
.
-evt
