[152079] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 support via Charter | Ideas on BGP Tunnel via HE
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Herrin)
Wed Apr 11 18:20:09 2012
In-Reply-To: <0D26CF48-6FE3-4E3D-ABC8-4C2C7BEE398D@puck.nether.net>
From: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 18:19:07 -0400
To: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> wrote:
> This is a big problem for the two providers involved in this "spat" havin=
g
> inconsistent IPv4/IPv6 business relationships (peering, etc).
>
> There are many professional service providers that will happily dual-stac=
k
> your internet port with consistent business relationships. =A0Don't let t=
hese
> two parties that so far have agreed to disagree prevent you from using IP=
v6
> to its fullest. =A0Select another carrier.
Hi Jared,
Is it really fair to say there are "two" parties in a peering spat
when Cogent is one of them?
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--=20
William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com=A0 bill@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
